From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Driskel v. Kenan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 15, 2011
No. C 10-5117 SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)

Opinion

No. C 10-5117 SI

11-15-2011

ANDREW JAMES DRISKEL, Plaintiff, v. REGINALD KENAN, et al., Defendants.


ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT JIMMIE MIDDLETON; DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On October 28, 2011, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing plaintiff to demonstrate that this Court has personal jurisdiction over defendants Middleton, Kuznof and Williams. The Order was mailed to plaintiff's address of record, and the Order was returned to the Court as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not taken any action in this case since filing a pleading on May 10, 2011.

Based upon the record before this Court, it appears that this Court lacks jurisdiction over North Carolina defendants Middleton, Kuznof and Williams. The complaint does not allege that these defendants have any contacts with California, and all of the events giving rise to plaintiff's claims occurred in North Carolina. Because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over defendant Middleton, the entry of default must be set aside. See Veeck v. Commodity Enterprises, Inc., 487 F.2d 423, 426 (9th Cir. 1973). Accordingly, the Court sets aside the default against defendant Middleton, and DISMISSES this case for lack of jurisdiction and based on plaintiff's failure to prosecute. The dismissal is without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Driskel v. Kenan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 15, 2011
No. C 10-5117 SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)
Case details for

Driskel v. Kenan

Case Details

Full title:ANDREW JAMES DRISKEL, Plaintiff, v. REGINALD KENAN, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 15, 2011

Citations

No. C 10-5117 SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)