From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Directv Inc. v. Abundez

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 19, 2005
No. CIV S-03-0948 GEB GGH PS (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2005)

Opinion

No. CIV S-03-0948 GEB GGH PS.

October 19, 2005


FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS


By order filed August 18, 2005, defendant, Peter Cao, was ordered to show cause, within ten days, why his answer should not be stricken and judgment entered for plaintiff. The ten day period has now expired, and defendant has not shown cause or otherwise responded to the court's order.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the defendant Cao's answer be stricken, and judgment be entered for plaintiff.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).


Summaries of

Directv Inc. v. Abundez

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 19, 2005
No. CIV S-03-0948 GEB GGH PS (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2005)
Case details for

Directv Inc. v. Abundez

Case Details

Full title:DIRECTV INC., Plaintiffs, v. JESSE ABUNDEZ, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 19, 2005

Citations

No. CIV S-03-0948 GEB GGH PS (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2005)