Res-NV One, LLC v. Garrett LLC et al

Filing 15

ORDER Granting 13 Motion to Strike 8 Answer to Complaint as to Garrett, LLC and Mackenzie Crossing, LLC. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 7/5/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

***

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

RES-NV ONE, LLC, a Florida limited liability )
company,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
GARRETT, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
)
company; MACKENZIE CROSSING, LLC, a )
Nevada limited liability company; LARRY L. )
SAYERS, an individual,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

Case No.: 2:11-cv-00345-RLH-PAL
ORDER
(Motion to Strike Answers of
Defendants Garrett, LLC and
Mackenzie Crossing, LLC–#13)

18
19

Before the Court is Plaintiff RES-NV ONE, LLC’s Motion to Strike Answers of

20

Defendants Garrett, LLC and Mackenzie Crossing, LLC (#13, filed June 3, 2011) based on

21

Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants did not reply.

22

This dispute arises from Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants for a deficiency

23

judgment. Plaintiff filed a complaint on March 4, 2011. Defendant Sayers, although not a lawyer,

24

answered on behalf of himself and the two other corporate Defendants, Garrett, LLC and

25

Mackenzie Crossing, LLC. (Dkt. #8, Answer, April 18, 2011.) Plaintiff now asks the Court to

26

strike Garrett, LLC and Mackenzie Crossing, LLC’s Answer.

AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

1

1

“It is a longstanding rule that ‘[c]orporations and other unincorporated associations

2

must appear in court through an attorney’.” D-Beam Ltd. Partnership v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc.,

3

366 F.3d 972, 973–74 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Licht v. Am. W. Airlines (In re Am. W. Airlines), 40

4

F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, Sayers improperly filed an Answer on behalf Garrett, LLC

5

and Mackenzie Crossing, LLC. Furthermore, Local Rule 7-2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice

6

provides that failure to file points and authorities in opposition to a motion constitutes a consent

7

that the motion be granted. Abbott v. United Venture Capital, Inc., 718 F. Supp. 828, 831 (D. Nev.

8

1989). Having failed to respond to Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants Garrett, LLC and Mackenzie

9

Crossing, LLC have effectively consented.

10

CONCLUSION

11

Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motion to Strike Answers of Defendants Garrett,

13

LLC and Mackenzie Crossing, LLC (#13) is GRANTED. Defendants’ Answer (#8) is therefore

14

stricken from the record with respect to Garrett, LLC and Mackenzie Crossing, LLC.

15

Dated: July 5, 2011.

16
17

____________________________________
ROGER L. HUNT
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

2