Gomez v. Raichart

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO RYAN GOMEZ and FRPP ENTERPRISES, LLC, Plaintiffs, vs. CIV No. 24-525 MLG/SCY CULLEN RAICHART and GREENBROZ, INC., Defendants, and GREENBROZ, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. LEAD TECHNOLOGY, LTD., Third-Party Defendant.

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION This matter comes before the Court sua sponte, following the Court’s Order to Show Cause. Doc. 63. On May 5, 2025, Third-Party Defendant Lead Technology filed an answer signed by an individual, Kislovich Jacob, who does not appear to be an attorney. Thereafter, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause, advising Third-Party Defendant Lead Technology that because it is not a natural person, this district’s local rules require that it be represented by an attorney. Doc. 63; see also D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.7 (“A corporation, partnership or business entity other than a natural person must be represented by an attorney authorized to practice before this Court.”); Harrison v. Wahatoyas, LLC, 253 F.3d 552, 556 (10th Cir. 2001) (“[A] corporation or other business entity can only appear in court through an attorney and not through a non-attorney corporate officer appearing pro se.”); D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.8(c) (Without an attorney, “any filings made by the corporation, partnership or business entity other than a natural person may be stricken and default judgment or other sanctions imposed.”). The Court thus ordered that, by July 7, 2025, Third-Party Defendant Lead technology file a notice of appearance of counsel or show cause in writing why its answer should not be stricken and default judgment imposed. That deadline has now expired and no attorney has appeared on behalf of Lead Technology nor has Lead Technology filed a response to the Order to Show Cause.

I therefore recommend that the Court STRIKE Third-Party Defendant Lead Technology’s Answer (Doc. 62) and that Third-Party Plaintiff follow the two-step process under Rule 55 to request an entry of default and default judgment.

Steven C. Yarbrough ; United States Magistrate Judge THE PARTIES ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE of a copy of these Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition they may file written objections with the Clerk of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party must file any objections with the Clerk of the District Court within the fourteen-day period if that party wants to have appellate review of the proposed findings and recommended disposition. If no objections are filed, no appellate review will be allowed.