Board of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan et al v. S and L Tramondo, Inc. et al
| Board of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Health Plan, Board of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Individual Account Plan and Board of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan |
| Alternative Metal Supply-Studio Division, Inc., S and L Tramondo Inc, Leticia Tramondo and Shaun Tramondo |
| 2:2016cv03683 |
| May 26, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Ronald S.W. Lew |
| Karen L. Stevenson |
| Labor: E.R.I.S.A. |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
35
ORDER Re: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS S&L TRAMONDO, INC. AND ALTERNATIVE METAL SUPPLY - STUDIO DIVISION, INC. 30 by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs' Mo tion for Default Judgment. The Court GRANTS the Motion and enters default judgment as to the first and second claims against S&L Tramondo and Alternative Metal Supply. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion against S&L Tramondo and Alternative Metal Supply as to the California Civil Code § 1719(a)(2) claim. SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER AND COMPLETE DETAILS. (jre)
|
|
Filing
23
IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW RE: LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. The file in this case lacks the papers that would show it is being timely prosecuted, as reflected below. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, hereby orders plaintif f (s) to show cause in writing no later than September 2, 2016, why defaulting defendants should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will accept one of the following, if it is f iled on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently: PLAINTIFF'S FILING OF A MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (as to defendants subject to an entry of default). No oral argument of this matter will be heard un less ordered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a response or motion on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due. Failure timely respond to this order may result in sanctions and/or the dismissal of defaulting defendants. (jre)
|
|
Filing
12
IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. The file in this case lacks the papers that would show it is being timely prosecuted, as reflected below. Accordingly, the Cour t, on its own motion, hereby orders plaintiff/s to show cause in writing no later than July 1, 2016, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will accept one o f the following, if it is filed on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently: Defendant/s' Answer/Response to the Complaint or Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default on defendant/s. No oral argum ent of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will standsubmitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or motion on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiff/s is due. Plaintiff is to serve notice of this Order on all named parties in this action who have been served but have not yet appeared. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. (jre)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
