SpamSuite.com

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, January 8, 2008:

MINUTE entry before Judge David H. Coar : Motion hearing held on 1/8/2008 regarding motion for entry of default, [38. MOTION by Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission for entry of default against Defendants Sili Neutraceuticals, LLC and Brian McDaid [38] is granted − signature order to follow from movant. Prove−up default In Court hearing set for 1/23/2008 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice

This is not really your standard, run-of-the-mill motion for entry of default. This is more of a motion for "death penalty sanctions". That is, to strike the answer and enter a default judgment as though no answer had ever been issued in the case.

Let me hasten to add that that's not precisely the request here. This is just a motion for default. There's no request to strike the answer. But, this is a form of sanctions nonetheless. The Defendants were ordered to produce certain paperwork by a given date and they refused. The penalty for that refusal is the entry of default.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

v.

SILI NEUTRACEUTICALS, LLC, and
BRIAN MCDAID, individually and doing
business as KAYCON LTD,
Defendants.

FTC’S MOTION TO STRIKE JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), by undersigned counsel, moves the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(a)(2), to strike the jury demand contained in Defendants’ Answer.1 In support of its motion, the FTC states:

Sili and McDaid apparently belong to the group that believes in "better late than never". According to the Docket, this filing was due on September 4. That would make it fifty-five days late. You might think that in that time period they might have proof-read this document, but alas, no. All spelling, numbering, and grammatical mistakes herein are also to be found in the original document.

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Federal Trade Commission as to Brian McDaid on 8/14/2007, answer due 9/4/2007

MINUTE entry before Judge David H. Coar on 8/22/2007:Status hearing continued to 8/27/2007 at 09:00 A.M.Mailed notice (pm, ) (Entered: 08/22/2007)

What do you do when someone from another place comes to your court, hat-in-hand and asks for a continuance?

Why you tell him "Find someone here and only communicate with me through local counsel or I'll strike your motion in 30 days. Your pick.", of course. It's called a Rule 83.15 letter after the local rule it references.

That rule states:

LR83.15. Local Counsel: Designation for Service

August 21, 2007

Honorable David H. Coar
United States District Court

Re: Federal Trade Commission v. Sili Neutraceuticals, TIC, and Brian McDaid
No. 07C4541

Dear Judge Coar:
I have been retained to represent the defendants Brian McDaid and Sili Neutraceuticals, LLC, in this FTC enforcement action assigned to your Honor. I have secured Mr. Wernikoff's permission to write directly to your Honor to address scheduling issues. Defendants are specifically requesting a continuance of the status conference scheduled for Wednesday, August 22, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

v.

SILI NEUTRACEUTICALS, LLC, and
BRIAN MCDAID, individually and doing
business as KAYCON LTD,
Defendants.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WITH ASSET FREEZE, OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF, AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

v.

SILI NEUTRACEUTICALS, LLC, and
BRIAN MCDAID, individually and doing
business as KAYCON LTD,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PASTE MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WITH ASSET FREEZE, OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF, AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE

1. INTRODUCTION