From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. Tozzi

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 28, 2007
No. 1:05-cv-148 OWW DLB (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2007)

Opinion

No. 1:05-cv-148 OWW DLB.

April 28, 2007

JOHN J. HOLLENBACK, JR. STATE BAR NO. 66215, JONES COCHRANE HOLLENBACK NELSON ZUMWALT, Modesto, California, Attorneys for Defendant, LESLIE F. JENSEN, ESQ.

LESLIE F. JENSEN, ESQ. STATE BAR NO. 94615, Attorney at Law, Modesto, California, Attorneys for Defendant, JOHN J. HOLLENBACK, JR.


JOINT DEFENDANTS LESLIE F. JENSEN AND JOHN J. HOLLENBACK, JR'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO ENTER DEFAULT


Comes now JOHN HOLLENBACK and LESLIE JENSEN who jointly object to the default proceeding pending:

1. Defendants have entered an appearance in this proceeding by filing a JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS. Such Motion was filed on April 5, 2005 and April 20, 2005 respectively, prior to the entry of their defaults in this matter. Defendants ask the court to take judicial notice of such Motion.

2. Defendants' Motion is scheduled for hearing on June 6, 2005.

3. The Plaintiff has not asked the Clerk of the Court to enter Defendants' defaults, rather has requested this matter to be set for hearing to determine whether it is appropriate to enter the default of the Defendants. Defendants ask the court to consider the filing of their MOTION TO DISMISS as their opposition to the request to enter their defaults.

4. Defendants ask this matter be submitted without the necessity of oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h).


Summaries of

Jones v. Tozzi

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 28, 2007
No. 1:05-cv-148 OWW DLB (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2007)
Case details for

Jones v. Tozzi

Case Details

Full title:MELVIN JONES, JR. et al. Plaintiff v. MICHAEL TOZZI, MARIE SOVEYSILVEIRA…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Apr 28, 2007

Citations

No. 1:05-cv-148 OWW DLB (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2007)

Citing Cases

McCoy v. Stratton

In addition, there is no "prohibition against considering all affidavits that are self-serving." Jones v.…

Grant v. Palomares

In addition, there is no "prohibition against considering all affidavits that are self-serving." Jones v.…