Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wynn Holdings, LLC v. Rolls-Royce Motor Cars NA, LLC, 2:17-cv-00127-RFB-NJK. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180215e08
Filed: Feb. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 14, 2018
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 28) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a motion to withdraw as counsel. Docket No. 47. As an initial matter, the motion was filed on an emergency basis because the discovery cutoff is set for February 16, 2018. The Court DECLINES to resolve the motion before that date, and Wynn remains responsible for complying with its discovery obligations in the interim. 1 The Court further ORDERS that any response to the motion shall be filed by Febr
More

ORDER

(Docket No. 28)

Pending before the Court is a motion to withdraw as counsel. Docket No. 47. As an initial matter, the motion was filed on an emergency basis because the discovery cutoff is set for February 16, 2018. The Court DECLINES to resolve the motion before that date, and Wynn remains responsible for complying with its discovery obligations in the interim.1

The Court further ORDERS that any response to the motion shall be filed by February 20, 2018, and that a hearing is SET for 9:30 a.m. on February 26, 2018, in Courtroom 3C. Plaintiff's counsel, a corporate representative for Plaintiff, and any newly retained counsel shall attend in person. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS, UP TO AND INCLUDING DISMISSAL. Cf. Docket No. 45. The Court reminds Plaintiff that corporations may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel. United States v. High Country Broad. Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993). Lastly, Plaintiff's counsel shall serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff, and shall file a proof of service by February 16, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The pending motion is premised in large part on Wynn's apparent refusal to participate in discovery. See, e.g., Docket No. 47-1 at 5-6. The Court will not effectively allow Wynn to thwart any remaining discovery by allowing its counsel to withdraw on the eve of the discovery cutoff. Cf. Cardoza v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., 141 F.Supp.3d 1137, 1143 (D. Nev. 2015) (emergency consideration of a motion is appropriate only upon a showing that the movant is not at fault in creating the crisis situation).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer