Gary S. Hann v. Wallace P. Pitchford

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedAugust 21, 2024
Docket5:23-cv-02381
StatusUnknown

This text of Gary S. Hann v. Wallace P. Pitchford (Gary S. Hann v. Wallace P. Pitchford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gary S. Hann v. Wallace P. Pitchford, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES— GENERAL

Case No. 5:23-cv-02381-SSS-SHKx Date August 21, 2024 Title Gary S. Hann v. Wallace P. Pitchford, et al.

Present: The Honorable SUNSHINE S. SYKES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Irene Vazquez Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS WALLACE P. PITCHFORD AND PAMELA PALMIERI SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED On July 16, 2024, Plaintiff Gary S. Hann moved for entry of default judgment against Wallace P. Pitchford and numerous Doe defendants. [Dkt. 62]. In support of his motion, Hann offers a declaration in which he attests that “Wallace P. Pitchford died on 1/28/24.” [Id. at 5]. However, Hann cannot maintain claims against a dead person. LN Management, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 957 F.3d 943, 954 (9th Cir. 2020) (“We therefore join our sister circuits in holding that a party cannot maintain a suit on behalf of, or again, or join, a dead person, or in any other way make a dead person (in that person’s own right, and not through a properly-represented estate or successor) party to a federal lawsuit.”). Accordingly, Hann is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why Wallace should not be dismissed from this case. The written response is due August 30, 2024. A hearing is set on this matter on September 13, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. via Zoom videoconference. Moreover, on June 6, 2024, Hann was ordered to show cause in writing why Palmieri should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution by June 27, 2024. [See Dkt. 56]. On June 27, 2024, Hann moved for entry of default judgment against Palmieri. [Dkt. 59]. On July 22, 2024, the Court denied Hann’s motion for default judgment against Defendant Pamela Palmieri because no default was entered against her. [Dkt. 64]. Since then, Hann has not prosecuted his claims against Palmieri. Accordingly, the Court extends the prior order-to-show-cause deadline from June 27, 2024, to August 30, 2024, for Hann to explain in writing why Palmieri should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. A hearing is set on this matter on September 13, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. via Zoom videoconference. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gary S. Hann v. Wallace P. Pitchford, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-s-hann-v-wallace-p-pitchford-cacd-2024.