1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 SmarterSwipe, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00299-CDS-MDC

5 Plaintiff Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Amended Report and Recommendation 6 v.

7 Carlos Navarrete, et al., [ECF No. 94]

8 Defendants 9 10 Plaintiff/counterdefendant SmarterSwipe, Inc. initiated this action seeking to recover for 11 a series of tort and contract claims against defendants/counterplaintiffs Carlos Navarrete, Carem 12 Arrhimi, Ethan Belloli-Ramos, Emmanuel Gonzalez, Robert Porras, Brian Silva, and Got-Woot, 13 Inc. First am. compl., ECF No. 45. Gonzalez, Porras, Silva, and Got-Woot are no longer parties 14 to this action. See ECF Nos. 76, 82, 92. As relevant here, in October 2024, then-counsel for 15 Navarrete, Arrhimi, and Belloli-Ramos sought, on an emergency basis, to withdraw as attorneys 16 of record. Mot., ECF No. 65. When granting the motion to withdraw, United States Magistrate 17 Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier III sua sponte extended the deadline for the defendants to 18 respond to SmarterSwipe’s interrogatories. Order, ECF No. 71. After the defendants failed to 19 comply, SmarterSwipe moved to compel responses to their interrogatories and other discovery. 20 Mot., ECF No. 72. Judge Couvillier granted the motion in part and ordered the defendants to 21 respond to the written discovery by January 31, 2025. Order, ECF No. 74. They did not. So 22 SmarterSwipe filed a second motion for sanctions seeking the imposition of more severe 23 sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) (i.e., striking pleadings, prohibiting certain defenses, and 24 potentially entering a default judgment). ECF No. 78 at 9. After supplemental briefing—and no 25 response from the defendants—Judge Couvillier issued a report and recommendation (R&R) 26 that I grant SmarterSwipe’s request and issue the following dispositive sanctions: (1) striking 1 the defendants’ answer to the amended complaint, (2) instructing the Clerk of Court to enter 2 default against the defendants, (3) dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim, and (4) directing 3 SmarterSwipe to seek default judgment against these defendants. R&R, ECF No. 94. 4 The parties had until May 28, 2025, to file any specific, written objections to the 5 magistrate judge’s R&R. Id. (citing Local Rule IB 3-2 (stating that parties wishing to object to 6 the findings and recommendations must file specific written objections within fourteen days)); 7 see also

(b)(1)(C) (same). If an objection is filed, a district judge must make a de 8 novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or 9 recommendations to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). However, the law is clear 10 that “no review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections 11 are filed.” Schmidt v. Johnstone,

(D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

(1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003). A month has 13 passed since the deadline and neither party objected to Judge Couvillier’s findings and 14 recommendations. 15 Although de novo review is not required, I nonetheless conduct one here. As set forth in 16 the R&R, “Rule 37(b)(2) empowers the Court to impose a variety of sanctions when a party 17 does not obey a discovery order. Such sanctions include striking pleadings and rendering default 18 judgments.” ECF No. 94 at 5–6 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(iii),(vi)). Joined with their 19 inherent power to control their docket, and in the exercise of that power, a district court may 20 impose sanctions, “including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.”

(quoting Thompson v. 21 Hous. Auth. of L.A.,

(9th Cir. 1986)) (citation omitted). With this authority, an 22 answer may be stricken if the defendants fail to defend themselves. Galtieri-Carlson v. Victoria M. 23 Morton Enters., Inc.,

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2010) (“Courts have stricken the 24 answers of defendants who have failed to defend themselves.”). 25 26 1 Here, the defendants have not participated in this litigation since their attorney’s 2 withdrawal in October 2024.1 They also violated Judge Couvillier’s orders by failing to respond 3 to interrogatories and failing to dispute the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s fees. ECF Nos. 71, 74. 4 In addition, the defendants have failed to diligently prosecute their counterclaim. As discussed 5 in the R&R, the public’s interest in expeditious litigation and the court’s need to manage its 6 docket weigh heavily in favor of striking the defendants’ answer and entering default. The 7 defendants’ failure to obtain new counsel, coupled with their unresponsiveness, has not only 8 delayed this litigation but also precludes the plaintiff from obtaining a decision on the merits. 9 Thompson,

. When weighing the drastic sanction of default, Judge Couvillier found 10 that the defendants’ “unresponsive, uncooperative, noncompliant” actions “constitute 11 willfulness, bad faith, or fault.” ECF No. 7 (citing Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc.,

, 948 12 (9th Cir. 1993). Based on a review of the record, it appears that less drastic sanctions are simply 13 not available. So I accept Judge Couvillier’s findings that the defendants have willfully not 14 participated in discovery and have deliberately disobeyed court orders, therefore dispositive 15 sanctions should be imposed. Consequently, the defendants’ answer is stricken and the default 16 of each of the previously answering defendant is now entered. 17 II. Conclusion 18 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF 19 No. 94] is accepted and adopted in full. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) the answer filed by defendants Carlos Navarrete, 21 Carem Arrhimi, and Ethan Belloli-Ramos [ECF No. 46] is STRICKEN; (2) the Clerk of Court 22 enter default against Carlos Navarrete, Caren Arrhimi, and Ethan Belloli-Ramos; and (3) the 23 defendants’ counterclaim [ECF No. 15] is DISMISSED. 24 25

26 1 The defendants were ordered to obtain new counsel or provide notice of their intent to proceed pro se. ECF No. 71. To date, neither has occurred. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SmarterSwipe must move for default judgment against Navarrete, Arrhimi, and Belloli-Ramos by July 28, 2025. The plaintiff is reminded to ensure that any motion for default judgment complies with Rule 55 and addresses the factors set forth in 4|| Eitel v. McCool,

(9th Cir. 1986). J) 5 Dated: June 27, 2025 Lf 7 Cris ii United States District Judge

9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26