Board of Trustees of the Construction Industry and Laborers Health and Welfare Trust et al v. Emmanuel Environmental, Inc. et al

Filing 20

ORDER. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: Plaintiffs' Motion (ECF No. 15 ) is GRANTED-IN-PART and the answer by defendant Emmanuel Environmental, Inc. is struck. Thus, defendants' joint answer at (ECF No. 12 ) is struck as to by Emmanue l Environmental, Inc. Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED-IN-PART to the extent that may seek to strike defendant Romelle Emmanuel's answer. Defendant Emmanuel Environmental, Inc. shall retain counsel and respond to plaintiffs' Complaint b y no later than June 18, 2024. Default judgment may be entered against Emmanuel Environmental, Inc. if it does not comply with this order and respond to plaintiffs' Complaint as directed; Defendant Romelle Emmanuel shall file a Certificate O f Interested Parties in compliance with LR 7.1-1 by no later than May 21, 2024; and The Clerk of Court shall mail defendants a copy of this order to defendants' last known address at 4550 Donovan Way, Ste 114, North Las Vegas, NV 89081, and t o 981 Whitney Ranch Dr, 1414, Henderson, NV, 89014. Emmanuel Environmental, Inc. answer due 6/18/2024. Certificate of Interested Parties due by 5/21/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III on 5/7/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RJDG)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Board of Trustees of the Construction Industry
and Laborers Health and Welfare Trust, et al.,
Plaintiff(s),

5
6

vs.

2:23-cv-01774-APG-MDC
Order

7
8

Emmanuel Environmental, Inc., et al,
Defendant(s).

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Pending before the Court is plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Answer of Emmanuel Environmental, Inc.
(ECF No. 15)(“Motion”). Defendants did not oppose the Motion. The motion seeks to strike the
answer (ECF No.12) of defendant Emmanuel Environmental, Inc. because defendant is a corporation,
and the answer was filed pro-se by defendant’s owner. “[A] corporation may appear in federal court
only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02
(1993). Thus, Courts may strike pleadings filed pro-se by a corporation. See e.g., Trustees of Operating
Engineers Pension Trust v. O’Donnell, No. 2:04-cv-728-BES-LRL, 2007 WL 672528 (D. Nev. Feb. 27,
2007) (striking answer for failure to retain counsel). Moreover, per LR 7-2(d), defendants’ failure to
file points and authorities in response to the Motion “constitutes a consent to the granting of the
motion.” Id. However, it is unclear from the answer (ECF No. 12) whether it was filed only on behalf
of the corporate defendant or for both defendants, Emmanuel Environmental, Inc. and Romelle
Emmanuel.
“A document filed pro se is “to be liberally construed.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). Thus, the Court liberally construes the answer (ECF No. 12) to be filed on behalf of both

1

defendants. Finally, the Court notes that defendants have not filed Certificate of Interested Parties

2

required by Local Rule 7.1-1, which provides:

3
4
5

LR 7.1-1. CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES
(a) Unless the court orders otherwise, in all cases except habeas corpus cases, pro se
parties and attorneys for private non-governmental parties must identify in the

6

disclosure statement all persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships or

7

corporations (including parent corporations) that have a direct, pecuniary interest in

8
9

the outcome of the case. The disclosure statement must include the following
certification: The undersigned, pro se party or attorney of record for _________,
certifies that the following may have a direct, pecuniary interest in the outcome of this

10

case: (here list the names of all such parties and identify their connection and

11

interests.) These representations are made to enable judges of the court to evaluate

12

possible disqualifications or recusal. Signature, Pro Se Party or Attorney of Record for

13

__________.
(b) If there are no known interested parties other than those participating in the case, a

14

statement to that effect will satisfy this rule.

15

(c) A party must file its disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading,

16

petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court. A party must

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

promptly file a supplemental certification upon any change in the information that this
rule requires.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1)

Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED-IN-PART and the answer by defendant

Emmanuel Environmental, Inc. is struck. Thus, defendants’ joint answer at (ECF No. 12) is
struck as to by Emmanuel Environmental, Inc. Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED-IN-PART to the
extent that may seek to strike defendant Romelle Emmanuel’s answer.
(2). Defendant Emmanuel Environmental, Inc. shall retain counsel and respond to plaintiffs’
Complaint by no later than June 18, 2024. Default judgment may be entered against Emmanuel

1

Environmental, Inc. if it does not comply with this order and respond to plaintiffs’ Complaint as

2

directed;

3

(3).

4

with LR 7.1-1 by no later than May 21, 2024; and

5

(4).

6

address at 4550 Donovan Way, Ste 114, North Las Vegas, NV 89081, and to 981 Whitney Ranch

7

Dr, 1414, Henderson, NV, 89014.

8

Dated this 7th day of May 2024.

Defendant Romelle Emmanuel shall file a Certificate Of Interested Parties in compliance

The Clerk of Court shall mail defendants a copy of this order to defendants’ last known

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

_________________________
Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III
United States Magistrate Judge