CAA Industries, Ltd. v. Recover Innovations, Inc.

Filing 90

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice granting 83 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/4/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MAM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8

CAA INDUSTRIES, LTD.,
vs.

Case No.: 2:22-cv-00581-GMN-EJY

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS

RECOVER INNOVATIONS, INC.,
Defendant.

9
10

Defendant Recover Innovations filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint,

11

(ECF No. 83), to which Plaintiff CAA Industries did not respond by the September 20, 2024,

12

deadline. Defendant then filed a Notice of Non-Opposition, (ECF No. 88).

13

In the Court’s previous Order Extending Plaintiff’s Response Deadline, it noted that

14

although Defendant served the Motion to Dismiss at the physical address provided by

15

Plaintiff’s former counsel, the Court’s Klingele Minute Order was distributed only by NEF and

16

not sent via email or mail to Plaintiff. (Order Extending Deadline, ECF No. 89). The Court

17

requested that the Clerk email and physically mail Plaintiff the Motion to Dismiss, Klingele

18

Minute Order, Defendant’s Notice of Non-Opposition, and the Court’s Order Extending the

19

Response Deadline, using the email addresses and physical address provided in Plaintiffs’

20

Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, (ECF No. 71). (Id.). To ensure Plaintiff had proper

21

notice of the filings, the Court extended Plaintiff’s Response Deadline to Defendant’s Motion

22

to Dismiss to January 15, 2025. (Id.). The Court reminded Plaintiff that if the Motion to

23

Dismiss is granted, judgment may be entered and the lawsuit will end without trial. (Id.).

24

As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Motion to Dismiss or

25

otherwise inform the Court of its intent to oppose. Pursuant to LR 7.2(d), “[t]he failure of an
Page 1 of 2

1

opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion, except a motion under

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or a motion for attorney’s fees, constitutes a consent to the granting of the

3

motion.” Therefore, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss as unopposed.

4

Accordingly,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 83), is GRANTED.

6
7

The action is dismissed without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is kindly requested to close this case.

8
9

4 day of March, 2025.
DATED this _____

10
11
12

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2