Abet Justice L.L.C. et al v. First America Trustee Servicing Solutions, L.L.C. et al

Filing 132

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendations re 121 Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Abet Justice, L.L.C.'s claims be, and the same hereby are, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE consistent with the foregoing. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/26/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

ABET JUSTICE LLC, et al.,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10
11

Case No. 2:14-CV-908 JCM (GWF)
ORDER

v.
FIRST AMERICA TRUSTEE SERVICING
SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al.,
Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Foley’s report and recommendation

14
15
16
17

recommending that plaintiff Abet Justice, L.L.C.’s (“Abet Justice”) claims be dismissed with
prejudice based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order to obtain successor counsel
(“R&R”). (ECF No. 121). Pro se plaintiff Guetatchew Fikrou filed an objection. (ECF No. 123).
In plaintiff Fikrou’s objection, he asserts that he is seeking an attorney to represent him on

18
19
20
21

this case and requests additional time to do so. (ECF No. 123). However, the magistrate’s R&R
recommends dismissal of plaintiff Abet Justice’s claims, not of plaintiff Fikrou’s claims. (ECF
No. 121).
Plaintiff Abet Justice has not filed an objection. The deadline to file an objection has since

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

passed.
This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects
to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at

2

all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

3

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

4

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United

5

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review

6

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

7

objections were made).

8

Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine

9

whether to adopt the R&R. Upon reviewing the recommendation and underlying briefs, the court

10

finds that good cause appears to adopt the R&R.
On September 8, 2016, plaintiff Fikrou filed a substitution of representation requesting to

11
12

represent his grantor, plaintiff Abet Justice. (ECF No. 130).

13

While plaintiff Fikrou is entitled to appear pro se on his own behalf, he has no authority to

14

appear as an attorney on plaintiff Abet Justice’s behalf or on behalf of anyone else. A corporation

15

is not permitted to appear in federal court unless it is represented by counsel. United States v. High

16

Country Broad. Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993). Although a non-attorney may appear

17

on his own behalf to represent himself, that privilege is personal to him. C.E. Pope Equity Trust

18

v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). An individual has no authority to appear as

19

an attorney for anyone other than himself. Id.

20

Plaintiff Abet Justice failed to respond to the magistrate’s order to show cause, wherein it

21

was cautioned that failure to timely respond would result in the imposition of sanctions. (ECF No.

22

121 at 3). To date, plaintiff Abet Justice still has not obtained successor counsel as ordered by

23

Magistrate Judge Foley.

24

In light of the foregoing, the court will adopt the R&R in its entirety and dismiss plaintiff

25

Abet Justice’s claims with prejudice. As the R&R pertained solely to plaintiff Abet Justice’s

26

claims, this order likewise pertains solely to plaintiff Abet Justice’s claims and not those of plaintiff

27

Fikrou.

28

...

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge

3

Foley’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 121) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its

4

entirety.

5
6
7
8
9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Abet Justice, L.L.C.’s claims be, and the same
hereby are, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE consistent with the foregoing.
DATED September 26, 2016.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-