Nguyen v. Islamic Republic of Iran

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA TONY NGUYEN, 5 Case No. 2:21-cv-00134-GMN-NJK Plaintiff, 6 ORDER v. 7 [Docket No. 82] g ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., Defendants.

10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs motion to amend the caption of his complaint.!

11] Docket No. 82. Plaintiff asks the Court to substitute Defendant The Tu Firm, A Professional Law 12|| Corporation dba Law Offices of Hoang Huy Tu in place of Defendant Law Offices of Hoang Huy 13] Tu.” Jd. at 3. Defendants did not file a response, and the time to do so has now passed. See 14] Docket. The failure to respond to a motion constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.

LR 7-2(d). Further, in examining the merits of the motion, good cause exists to grant Plaintiff's 16] unopposed request to amend his complaint. See Middleton v. Human Behavior Inst., Ltd., 2017 17], WL 579896, at *1 n.2 (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2017) (granting plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to file an amended complaint to correctly name a defendant).

19 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to amend the caption of his complaint, Docket No. 82, is 20] hereby GRANTED. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to substitute Defendant The Tu Firm, 21] A Professional Law Corporation dba Law Offices of Hoang Huy Tu in place of Defendant Law Offices of Hoang Huy Tu.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 Dated: June 10, 2021 Nancy J. Kopp e 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27), ————_____ ' The Court liberally construes Plaintiff's filing, as he is proceeding pro se. See Erickson 28] v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).