Euro Motor Sport Inc. v. ARB Las Vegas ( 2023 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Euro Motor Sport Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00177-CDS-BNW 5 Plaintiffs Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation and Entering Default 6 v. Against Defendant ARB Las Vegas 7 ARB Las Vegas, et al., [ECF No. 63] 8 Defendants 9 10 On June 6, 2023, Magistrate Judge Brenda N. Weksler entered a report and 11 recommendation (R&R) for default judgment against defendant ARB Las Vegas due to its 12 failure to comply with orders to retain new counsel. ECF No. 63. Despite an extension of time 13 and two explicit warnings that the corporation’s failure to do so could result in the entry of a 14 default judgment, ARB did not retain counsel. ECF Nos. 61, 62. Judge Weksler also advised ARB 15 that it had 14 days to file any objections to the R&R. ECF No. 63 at 1–2. Under this district’s 16 local rules, the deadline for ARB to object to the R&R was June 20, 2023. See LR IB 3-2(a) 17 (stating that parties wishing to object to the R&R must file objections within fourteen days). 18 ARB did not object. For the reasons set out below, the R&R is accepted and adopted in full. 19 A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 20 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects 21 to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de 22 novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is 23 made.” Id. Yet the Ninth Circuit has recognized that “no review is required of a magistrate 24 judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 25 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 26 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the district 1 court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were made). 2 Nevertheless, I find de novo review appropriate to determine whether to adopt the R&R. 3 ARB’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw on March 24, 2023, after learning that 4 discovery had closed in this action, and that the case is essentially set for trial. ECF No. 60. On 5 March 28, 2023, Judge Weksler granted that motion and instructed, “[d]efendant [ARB] must 6 retain counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance by 4/27/23, as corporations cannot 7 represent themselves.” Order, ECF No. 61. ARB was warned that failure to comply with the 8 order could result in a default being entered against it. Id. ARB had not complied with the order 9 by the April 27 deadline, so Judge Weksler sua sponte extended the time for ARB to retain 10 counsel and file a notice of appearance. Minute Order, ECF No. 62. Judge Weksler again warned 11 ARB that a failure to comply would result in a default being entered against it. Id. As of the date 12 of this order, the court has not received any notice of appearance by an attorney on ARB’s behalf 13 nor any request seeking an extension of time to retain new counsel. Moreover, ARB has not 14 objected to Judge Weksler’s recommendation to enter a default against it. 15 It is a longstanding rule that “[c]orporations and other unincorporated associations must 16 appear in court through an attorney.” In re Am. W. Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (per 17 curiam). Furthermore, default judgment is appropriate when a defaulting corporation fails to 18 comply with a district court’s order to retain licensed counsel. United States v. High Country 19 Broadcasting Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993). ARB’s disregard of Judge Weksler’s orders has 20 delayed litigation and disrupted the court’s timely management of its docket. Sanctions less 21 drastic than default are unavailable because ARB has willfully refused to comply with court 22 orders and to obtain counsel so that it may continue to participate in this case. Thus, I concur 23 with the magistrate judge’s recommendation that ARB’s repeated failure to meet their obligation 24 to retain counsel in this action warrants entering default against ARB Las Vegas and in favor of 25 plaintiffs Euro Motor Sport Inc. and Sammie Benson. 26 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Weksler’s Report and 2|/Recommendation [ECF No. 63] is ADOPTED in its entirety. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court enter default against defendant 4||ARB Las Vegas. Plaintiffs are directed to file a motion for default judgment that satisfies the 5|/requirements of Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the factors established in 6||Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) by July 24, 2023. 7 DATED June 27, 2023 Jy ) 8 9 Cristina D. Silva 10 United States District Judge ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26