Hi, Micro. Re the Texas case, people can probably

Hi, Micro.

Re the Texas case, people can probably contact the court clerk to confirm, but I'm guessing that when you look at the information for the case online at the court's website, the "default" item listed in the "Settings" page for the case that says "passed" is because all of the defendants finally "appeared" in the case—that is, they filed answers—so there was no basis for Geo to get a default against any of them.

I'm also guessing that the "motion to compel production" that is listed as "passed" is because Geo may have calendared the motion (or the court may have assigned it) but the date dropped off the calendar because, for any number of reasons, Geo didn't file any motion papers.  The reference to "no pleadings on file" may just be a confusing use of "pleadings" in the more generic sense (as in "court filings," like motion papers, and not the more specific meaning for complaint, answer, etc.).

Re the California case, it looks to me like CWRN only obtained the entry of default.  That's not the same as a default judgment, but it is the initial step in that direction.  After the entry of a default against a defendant, the plaintiff then usually has to file paperwork and appear at an abbreviated hearing to "prove up" the right to a default judgment.

It looks like there may be a motion scheduled for June 7 in the California case.  That could be the motion seeking a default judgment or it could be some other motion or automatic date.  I just can't tell from the court's website.

Why Geo has thus far failed to appear in the California case is anyone's guess.