Accor Franchising North America, LLC v. Elohim Ent. Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Accor Franchising North America, LLC
Defendant: Elohim Ent. Inc. and Gondosinaryo Listyo
Case Number: 2:2012cv00762
Filed: March 23, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Carolyn K. Delaney
Presiding Judge: Garland E. Burrell
Nature of Suit: Franchise
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1330
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 25, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 41 DEFAULT JUDGMENT against Gondosinaryo Listyo, jointly and severally with Elohim Ent. Inc. in the amount of $114,805.63 (ONE HUNDRED FOURTEEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIVE DOLLARS AND SIXTY-THREE CENTS) signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 4/24/2013. (Michel, G)
April 8, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 39 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/8/13 RECOMMENDING that 33 and 36 Motions for Default Judgment against defendant Gondosinaryo Listyo, jointly and severally with defendant Elohim Ent., Inc., be granted in the amount of $114,805.63 and that this action be closed. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Meuleman, A)
February 21, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 28 DEFAULT JUDGMENT against Elohim Ent. Inc. (Manzer, C)
January 25, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 26 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/24/13 RECOMMENDING that Plaintiff's 19 24 Motions for default judgment against defendant Elohim Ent., Inc. be granted in the amount of $114,805.63. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Meuleman, A)
December 26, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/26/2012 ORDERING that the 15 entry of default against defendant Elohim Ent. Inc. is REINSTATED. Plaintiff shall advise the court no later than 1/18/2013 whether it seeks default judgment against the defendant corporation based on its previously filed motion for default judgment 19 . Service of the motion supporting documents shall be served on the defendant corporation at the corporate address on file with the California Secretary of State. (Zignago, K.)
December 20, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 20 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/19/12 ORDERING 13 15 Clerk's Entry of Default are vacated; and 19 Motion for Default Judgment is denied without prejudice. (Matson, R)
October 9, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 10/5/12 ORDERING the Plaintiff shall file a motion for entry of default judgment before the Magistrate Judge within thirty days of the date on which this Order is filed. If Plaintiff fails to timely fil e the motion, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing no later than November 12, 2012 why this action should not be dismissed for failure of prosecution. This action may be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) if Plaint iff fails to timely respond to this Order. Further, the status conference scheduled for hearing on October 15, 2012, is continued to commence at 9:00 a.m. on April 15, 2013. A status report shall be filed fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference in which Plaintiff is required to explain the status of the default proceedings. (Becknal, R)
September 21, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 16 ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 9/20/12 ORDERING Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause in a writing to be filed no later than October 1, 2012, why sanctions should not be imposed against it and/or its counsel for failure to file a timely status report. The Status Conference is reset for 10/15/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.. (Matson, R)
July 10, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 7/10/2012 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 5 request to serve Elohim through the California Secretary of State and Listyo through publication in the U-T San Diego for eight (8) successive weeks is GRANTED and the hearing currently scheduled for 7/16/2012 is VACATED. (Zignago, K.)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Accor Franchising North America, LLC v. Elohim Ent. Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Elohim Ent. Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Gondosinaryo Listyo
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Accor Franchising North America, LLC
Represented By: Calvin E. Davis
Represented By: Aaron Paul Rudin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?