The 24-7 Group of Companies, Inc. v. Roberts et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying 50 motion for reconsideration. The Court will not entertain any further motion filed by Kraft on behalf of 24-7. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/5/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

THE 24-7 GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC.
a Nevada corporation,

Case No. 3:13-cv-00211-MMD-WGC
ORDER

8
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
12

v.
TERRY ROBERTS, an individual;
MELANIE ROBERTS, an individual; and
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., etc.,
Defendant.

13
14

On November 21, 2014, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice due to

15

the failure of Plaintiff The 24-7 Group of Companies, Inc. (“24-7”) to secure successor

16

counsel in this matter. (Dkt. no. 46.) Plaintiff’s chairman, Rune Kraft (“Kraft”), sought

17

reconsideration, which was denied. (Dkt. nos. 48, 49.) Instead of retaining counsel, Kraft

18

has filed another motion for reconsideration on behalf of 24-7, seeking reconsideration of

19

the Court’s orders permitting 24-7’s previous counsel to withdraw. (Dkt. no. 50.) The

20

Court has repeatedly emphasized that 24-7, a corporate entity, cannot represent itself or

21

be represented by Kraft, who is not its legal counsel, and that 24-7 must retain counsel

22

to prosecute this action. (See dkt. no. 37; dkt. no. 39; dkt. no. 42 at 2; dkt. no. 44 at 7;

23

dkt. no. 46 at 3; dkt. no. 49 at 2.) Kraft’s motion for reconsideration (dkt. no. 50) is

24

denied. The Court will not entertain any further motion filed by Kraft on behalf of 24-7.

25

DATED THIS 5th day of January 2015.

26
27
28

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE