Default Judgement

* 1. excusable default, if such motion is made within one year after service of a copy of the judgment or order with written notice of its entry upon the moving party, or, if the moving party has entered the judgment or order, within one year after such entry; or

Also please be advised that I, Omar Warrad will pursue all available legal remedies, including seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, and an order that you pay court costs and attorney’s fees.

(the defendant). Cruz’s parents sent an email to Fagor on the date of the occurrence detailing said incident, and the defendant responded by denying liability. Cruz filed a complaint against Fagor alleging causes of action for negligence and product liability. Through his attorney, Cruz mailed the summons and complaint addressed to the company’s Chairman of the Board through certified mail requesting a return receipt. The receipt indicated that the envelope was accepted and signed for by an individual at the company headquarters, but Fagor failed to file an answer or make any appearance until after the plaintiff had entered a motion for a default judgment against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion to set aside the entry of default and the default judgment, which the court granted on the grounds that there was no proof that the summons and complaint:

Parties to the Case, Facts of the Case, and Business Reasons for the Dispute (30 points)

Issues: Throughout the trail process on behalf of the court the inquiry for exceptions to the charge inaccuracy developed regarding instructions. The appellant was seeking a claim based of the defense of his

26) Defendant attempted to have Plaintiff put on unpaid leave, but the OAH denied the request.

FACTS -- Subsequent to a failed attempt from the plaintiff to appeal and receive the right to a trial, Harold Caldwell filed a bill of review for a case that was decided with his absence due to a dearth of convenient notification. The contrasting party, Robert Barnes, declared that he hired private process server DeWayne Perdew, to deliver the summon to Caldwell and that the decision made by the lower courts is correct. The decision of lower courts was made during a pretrial hearing, denying Caldwell a trial.

On June 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default against Defendant, Norman Henson, Jr. However, Defendant believes Plaintiff has not perfected service on Defendant.

Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Robert Higgins and Teresa Higgins (the “Higginses”) and Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Richard Hargrove and Kathleen Hargrove (the “Hargroves”), by their respective undersigned counsel, hereby submit this Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.

The plaintiff, First Colonial Bank for Savings entered into an interpleader action in the District court to determine who was entitled to the surplus proceeds from the foreclosure sale. The foreclosed property belonged to the defendants, Robert H. and Sherrell L. Bergeron, and the codefendants, Ford Motor Credit Company, the junior mortgagee of the foreclosed property as a result of corporate restructuring Ford Consumer Finance Company was substituted as the defendant for Ford Motor Credit Company. Both the Bergerons and Ford filed motions for summary judgement as they both felt entitled to the surplus. The district court ruled in favor of Ford Motor Credit Company and denied the Bergerons motion. The Bergerons appealed the decision of the District Court because they argued that they filed for and were discharged from bankruptcy prior to the foreclosure sale, therefore they believed that the security interest granted to Ford prior to their petition does not carry over to the surplus funds received after filing the petition.

When I was present, the plaintiff and defendant were each giving their precedent. The plaintiff’s representative talked James King sent a threatening letter to Judge Seel’s house. In which, he explained descriptive evidence on how King made “threats” to Judge Seel in his argument. James King, on the other hand, was a man with a lot of “problems”. He stated that he was not in the right state of mind when he made the threat to Judge Seel. Also

Now through undersigned counsel, come Defendant, Lauris Hollis ("Defendant"), who respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing the Plaintiff 's claims against him. Defendant move this Court for a Summary Judgment on the grounds that the Plaintiff has no cause of action, no right of action or no interest in the plaintiff to institute the suit and it should be dismissed.

As you know, this is a controverted claim which we are defending on the grounds the claimant is not an employee but rather an independent contractor. At the last hearing we took the testimony of the claimant. The claimant does not speak English and required a Spanish interpreter. The testimony was quite lengthy and we used up the entire time allowance. The Judge terminated the testimony before we were able to completed the claimant’s testimony or the testimony of Mr. George.

We are withdrawing your claim that we filed from the court and advising defense counsel that Johnson Law Group will continue as your attorneys.