Legal Opinion

Spikes v. Shockley

District Court, S.D. California

Decided October 28, 2019No. 3:19-cv-00523Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREL SPIKES, Case No.: 19-CV-523 DMS (JLB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. DEFAULT JUDGMENT 14 KUM CHA SHOCKLEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against 18 Defendant Kum Cha Shockley. The motion is unopposed. Upon consideration of the 19 pleadings, the motion, and Defendant’s lack of appearance in this case or opposition to the 20 motion, the Court grants the motion. The Clerk of Court shall enter the judgment in favor 21 of…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Gary R. Eitel v. William D. McCoolCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
  4. Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
  5. Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API