Basile v. The Los Angeles Film School, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA Constantino Basile, 3 2:24-cv-00108-APG-MDC Plaintiff(s), VS. Report and Recommendation To Deny 5 Plaintiff?s Motion for Relief Per FRCP 60(b)(6) The Los Angeles Film School LLC, et al., Defendant(s).

I have reviewed plaintiff’s Motion for Relief Per FRCP 60(b)(6) (ECF No. 95).! In his motion, plaintiff requests to vacate the District Judge’s Order (ECF No. 88) granting Santa Monica’s motion to dismiss and to sua sponte amend plaintiff's complaint with certain evidence plaintiff claims to be newly discovered. I recommend denying plaintiff's motion as moot because plaintiff has filed a first amended complaint (ECF No. 103) which includes the purported new evidence (see e.g., ECF No. 103-5).

Accordingly, IT RECOMMEND that plaintiff's Motion for Relief Per FRCP 60(b)(6) (ECF No. 95) be DENIED as moot.

16 fy _ DATED this 6" day of November 2024. fe] Yo 17 Loff~f</ IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. fb ‘\ 18 Mh) 19 Aon. Maximiffano I}. Couvillier III United Stateg Magistrate Judge 21 NOTICE 22 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and || recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 25 Plaintiff filed his Motion for Relief Per FRCP 60(b)(6) in the same brief as his Motion in Opposition to Santa Monica's Motion to Quash. See ECF No. 95. [have addressed plaintiff's Motion in Opposition to Santa Monica’s Motion to Quash in a separate Order.

of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, plaintiffs must immediately file written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel.

Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action.