Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States of America v. Barringer Brothers Roofing

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


February 27, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
BARRINGER BROTHERS ROOFING, INC.,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge:

ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiffs' motion for default judgment (Doc. 9). In examining the motion, the Court notes that the government has not met the requirements of Local Rule 55.1.

Local Rule 55.1(a) requires the moving party to: (1) "give notice of the entry of default to the defaulting party by regular mail sent to the last known address of the defaulted party," and (2) "certify to the Court that notice has been sent." Further, Local Rule 55.1(b) requires that the motion seeking default judgment "shall contain a statement that a copy of the motion has been mailed to the last known address of the party from whom default judgment is sought. If the moving party knows, or reasonably should know, the identity of an attorney thought to represent the defaulted party, the motion shall also state that a copy has been mailed to that attorney."

Here, it appears to the Court that the government did not follow the local rules in filing its motion to for default judgment. Local Rule 55.1 requires that notice must be mailed (not emailed) to the last known address of the party from whom default is sought. It also requires that if the moving party knows or has reason to know the identity of an attorney thought to represent that the defaulted party the motion shall state that a copy has been mailed to that attorney. Further, the attorney for the moving party must certify, as an officer of the court, the he or she does not have knowledge that the defaulted party is represented by counsel for any matter whatsoever and there is no counsel to whom the motion can be mailed. This procedure was not followed in this case. Accordingly, the Court hereby allows the government leave to file a supplement to the motion to demonstrate full compliance with Local Rule 55.1.This supplement shall be filed by March 12, 2012. Failure to do sowill result in a denial of the motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

David R. Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court

2012.02.27 17:40:31 -06'00'

20120227

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.