SearchSupport the SiteOur SponsorsLinks and SupportersCopyrightExcept where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
All copyright interests in the legal filings contained herein are expressly disclaimed. Documents, opinions, and comments provided on any Spamsuite.com page are for general information purposes only and are not intended to substitute for informed professional legal advice. Spamsuite.com expressly disclaims liability for any opinion expressed in comments. Spamsuite.com does not endorse any article comment. |
Federal Trade Commission v Sili NeutraceuticalsRuling on Motion for DefaultThis 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
Motion for Entry of DefaultThis 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. Motion to Strike Jury DemandUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, v. SILI NEUTRACEUTICALS, LLC, and 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:
Defendants' AnswerSili 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.
Stipulated Preliminary InjunctionUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, v. SILl NEUTRACEUTICALS, LLC, and STIPULATED PRELlMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER WITH ASSET FREEZE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF
ANSWER Due09/04/2007 - 00:00 09/04/2007 - 23:59 US/Central SUMMONS Returned Executed by Federal Trade Commission as to Brian McDaid on 8/14/2007, answer due 9/4/2007
|
Upcoming DatesNavigationUser login |
Recent comments
2 days 3 hours ago
1 week 4 days ago
4 weeks 4 days ago
5 weeks 4 days ago
7 weeks 7 hours ago
7 weeks 1 day ago
7 weeks 4 days ago
8 weeks 3 days ago
9 weeks 4 days ago
11 weeks 1 day ago