I go away for a few days and things start to get interesting. I decided to check PACER on this case and noticed a bunch of activity. One thing I didn’t see filed was the “Return of Service,” (shows Hatfield was served a summons) but as Hatfield now has an attorney, I will assume he was served (*** Was served on 10 May 12 *** – why hasn’t Prenda filed/updated the court?). I will take some time to go over Defendant Hatfields’ Motion to Dismiss and comment. Untill then, I figured I should get it out in the open first.
NOTICE OF REPRESENTATION, 31 May 12. Nicholas Ranallo is on the case. I think the “negligence” claim is going to get tore up. 🙂 Note_Appearance_Ranallo_02049(CA) I wonder if Prenda will try to amend the complaint and directly name Hatfield as the defendant. As this didn’t go well for Prenda in the Wong case, I’m betting they will not do this.
DEFENDANT HATFIELD’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AND FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT, 31 May 12. Hatfield_MTD_02049(CA) Bad_Summons_02049(CA) Proposed_Order_Dismiss_02049(CA) – Can’t believe Gibbs actually provided the process-server an unreadable copy of the complaint – classic!
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, Oakland Division, assigned this case, 5 Jun 12. Judge_Hamilton_Assigned_02049(CA) Mr. Ranallo motioned the court for this case to be heard by a magistrate court, but Prenda declined to agree. Mag_Court_Consent_02049(CA) Prenda_Decline_Mag_Court_02049(CA) Pend_Dist_Court_Judge_02049(CA)
Prenda/Gibbs is going to have fun trying to keep this turd of a case afloat. Mr. Ranallo is well versed on the negligence claim. As this case stemmed from an earlier voluntarily dismissed case, Gibbs can’t easily dismiss it and refile – Two Strikes. Let keep watch and see if Gibbs does his normal screw up.
Please read the Motion to Dismiss and provide me your thoughts on it.
Hey John. Is this one of your first 100 named/served Does? Doesn’t look like too good of a start for the negligence claim. More to come.