Wright v. Scoma

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA TYLER WRIGHT, 6 Case No. 2:22-cv-01282-APG-NJK Plaintiff, 7 Order Vv.

8 [Docket No. 6] MICHAEL B. SCOMA, et al., Defendants.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to strike defendant Scoma Law Firm, PLLC’s answer. Docket No. 6. No response has been filed and the deadline to do so has now expired. See Docket.

Failure to respond to a motion constitutes consent to the granting of that motion. Local Rule 7-2(d). Additionally, “[iJt is a longstanding rule that corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.” D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to strike defendant Scoma Law Firm, PLLC’s answer is GRANTED! Docket No. 6. Defendant Scoma Law Firm, PLLC must retain counsel and file an answer no later than November 7, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED. » Dated: October 24, 2022 LEY Ge 23 Nancy Koppe >A UnitedStates Magistrate Judge ———_ Plaintiff also requests that the Court enter sanctions and a default against defendant Scoma 27] Law Firm, PLLC. Docket No. 6 at 2, 3. Under Local Rule IC 2-2(b) each type of relief sought must be requested in separate motions. Accordingly, the Court declines to reach Plaintiffs request 28] for sanctions and entry of default at this time.