UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
August 3, 2011
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, PLAINTIFF,
NHS SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
On October 1, 2010, the FTC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment Against the NHS/PHS Defendants.Docket No. 136. That motion seeks judgment against ten entity defendants and seven individual defendants. To date, no defendant has responded to the motion, nor has any attorney entered an appearance on behalf of any of these defendants.*fn1
Because of the complexity of the issues involved and the amount of monetary damages sought ($6,879,162.22), the court finds it appropriate to send notice to these pro se defendants outlining (1) the requirements of the summary judgment rule and (2) the consequences of not responding. See Ruotolo v. IRS, 28 F.3d 6, 8 (2d Cir. 1994) (per curiam) ("[T]he failure of a district court to apprise pro se litigants of the consequences of failing to respond to a motion for summary judgment is ordinarily grounds for reversal."); Timms v. Frank, 953 F.2d 281, 286 (7th Cir. 1992) ("[A]ll pro se litigants, not just prisoners, are entitled to notice of the consequences of failing to respond to a summary judgment motion. . . . [T]his notice should include both the text of Rule 56(e) and a short and plain statement in ordinary English that any factual assertion in the movant's affidavits will be taken as true by the district court unless the non-movant contradicts the movant with counter-affidavits or other documentary evidence.").*fn2
Accordingly, a notice and order shall be transmitted to each of the NHS/PHS defendants explaining the consequences of failing to respond to a summary judgment motion.