Gallindo et al v. Lowden et al

Filing 47

ORDER that the 40 Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED. Defendant Lowden's 43 Motion to Extend Time is Granted in part. The Court extends the time for the filing of a notice of appearance of counsel to 2/23/2017. Response to 35 Motio n to Compel due by 3/9/2017. Failure to file a response with proper points and authorities by that date will constitute consent to the granting of the motion. LR 7-2(d). Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/24/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 RAVEN ENTERTAINMENT, et al., 11 Plaintiffs, 12 vs. 13 CHRISTOPHER LOWDEN, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:15-cv-02299-GMN-NJK ORDER 16 On November 15, 2016, the Court granted the motion for Defendants’ attorneys to withdraw. 17 Docket No. 33. As part of that order, the Court required all corporate Defendants to retain counsel and 18 have them file a notice of appearance by December 16, 2016. See id. The Court further ordered the 19 individual Defendants to either file a notice of intent to proceed pro se or have any newly retained 20 attorney file a notice of appearance by December 16, 2016. See id. Defendants did not comply. Instead, 21 Defendant Christopher Lowden filed a request to extend the time for himself and two of the corporate 22 defendants to comply. Docket No. 38.1 The Court granted that motion and extended the above deadline 23 to January 13, 2017. Docket No. 39. The Court also cautioned that “THE FAILURE TO COMPLY 24 WITH THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS, UP TO AND 25 INCLUDING CASE-DISPOSITIVE SANCTIONS.” Id. (emphasis in original). 26 27 28 1 Defendant Harold Gray neither complied with the Court’s order nor sought an extension of the pertinent deadline. 1 On January 24, 2017, after Defendants had failed to comply with the Court’s order, the Court 2 ordered Defendants to show cause in writing, by February 7, 2017, why default judgment should not be 3 entered for their failure to comply with the Court’s orders. Docket No. 40. On February 7, 2017, 4 Defendant Gray filed a response to the Court’s order to show cause and, on February 8, 2017, Defendant 5 Lowden filed a response. Docket Nos. 41, 42. Further, on February 8, 2017, Defendant Lowden filed 6 a motion to extend the time to comply for another 30 days. Docket No. 43. 7 On February 23, 2017, the Court held a hearing on the order to show cause and Defendant 8 Lowden’s motion. Docket No. 45. Attorney Tony Abbatangelo appeared at the hearing and indicated 9 his intent to enter his appearance on behalf of all Defendants. Id. The Court ordered that Mr. 10 Abbatangelo was to do so no later than the end of the day. Id. On February 23, 2017, Mr. Abbatangelo 11 entered his appearance in the instant case on behalf of all Defendants. Docket No. 46.2 12 Accordingly, 13 IT IS ORDERED that the order to show cause, Docket No. 40, is hereby DISCHARGED. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Lowden’s motion for extension of time, Docket 15 No. 43, is hereby GRANTED in part. The Court extends the time for the filing of a notice of 16 appearance of counsel to February 23, 2017. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a response to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, Docket No. 35, 18 shall be filed no later than March 9, 2017. Failure to file a response with proper points and authorities 19 by that date will constitute consent to the granting of the motion. LR 7-2(d). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED: February 24, 2017. 22 23 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28 2 The Court notes that, although Mr. Abbatangelo’s filing indicates his notice of appearance for all Defendants, it appears as if he filed it only on behalf of Defendants Lowden and Gray. Docket No. 46. The Court therefore INSTRUCTS the Clerk’s Office to amend the docket so as to enter Mr. Abbatangelo’s appearance on behalf of all Defendants. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?