Miao v. Caie Foods Partnership, Ltd. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 AI HUA MIAO, Case No. 3:22-CV-00463-ART-CLB 6 Plaintiff ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & 7 v. RECOMMENDTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE (ECF NO. 60) AND ENTERING 8 CAIE FOODS PARTNERSHIP, LTD., et DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANTS. al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin’s Report and 12 Recommendation (R&R), recommending default be entered against Defendants 13 for their failure to defend this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), and that 14 Defendant’s answer (ECF No. 31) be stricken. (ECF No. 60.) Neither party has 15 filed an objection to the R&R. 16 Magistrate judges are empowered to issue reports and recommendations 17 on dispositive issues, which district judges may “accept, reject, or modify, in 18 whole or in part.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Where, as here, neither party objects 19 to a magistrate judge's recommendation, the district court is not required to 20 perform any review of that judge's conclusions. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 21 150 (1985). 22 Judge Baldwin’s R&R recommends dismissal because Defendants are not 23 represented by counsel. Under Ninth Circuit law, a corporate entity may only 24 appear in federal court when represented by counsel. In re America West Airlines, 25 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994); see also C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United 26 States, 818 F.2d 696, 697–98 (9th Cir. 1987); Church of the New Testament v. 27 United States, 783 F.2d 771, 77–74 (9th Cir. 1986). Defendants have been advised 28 repeatedly by the Court that they are required to defend this action through 1 || representation by counsel. (ECF Nos. 57, 59.) On July 31, 2024, the Court 2 || ordered Defendants to file a substitution of counsel by August 30, 2024, which 3 || Defendants failed to do. (ECF No. 57.) Defendants were then notified on 4 || September 3, 2024, that if they did not file a substitution of counsel by October 5 || 3, 2024, the Magistrate Judge would enter a report and recommendation 6 || recommending that Defendant’s answer be stricken and default be entered 7 || against them. (ECF No. 59.) 8 The Court agrees with Judge Baldwin’s reasoning and adopts her R&R in 9 || full. Defendants have failed, despite numerous warnings from the court, to enter 10 || an appearance of counsel. Therefore, Defendants have failed to defend this action 11 || and default must be entered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). 12 Conclusion: 13 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation 14 || (ECF No. 60) is ADOPTED in full. 15 It is further ordered that Defendant’s answer (ECF No. 31) is STRICKEN. 16 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court ENTER DEFAULT against 17 || Defendants by reason of their failure to defend this action pursuant to Fed. R. 18 || Civ. P. 55(a). 19 20 Dated this 7 day of November, 2024. 21 22 AA jlosect en 23 ANNE R. TRAUM 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28