Martell v. Lowery

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA Leandre Martell, 2:24-cv-00159-GMN-MDC 4 Plaintiff(s), ORDER vs. Wellpath LLC, et al., 7 Defendant(s).

8 Pending before the Court are a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (ECF No. 38) and Motion to Remove from Electronic Service (ECF No. 41).

10 The law firm of LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP (“LBBS”) seeks to withdraw from representing defendant Wellpath, LLC in this matter. See ECF No. 38. LBBS represents that Wellpath, LLC has terminated representation and that no delays would result by granting the Motion to Withdraw. Id. For good cause shown and because the motion is unopposed, the Court grants the Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 38). The Court cautions defendant Wellpath, LLC that if for some reason it desires to make an appearance in this case, it must retain counsel. See United States v. High Country Broad. Co, 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (In federal courts, corporate entities may only appear through licensed counsel).

18 Ethan Featherstone, Esq. moves to be removed from CM/ECF service in this matter. Attorney Ethan Featherstone states that he is no longer associated with LBBS. For good cause shown, the Court grants the Motion to Remove from Electronic Service (ECF No. 41).

22 ACCORDINGLY, 23 IT IS ORDERED that: 24 1. The Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED.

2. The law firm of LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP is to be removed as counsel of record for defendant Wellpath, LLC and removed from CM/ECF service in this matter.

3. The Motion to Remove from Electronic Service (ECF No. 41) is GRANTED.

4 4. Ethan Featherstone, Esq. is to be removed from CM/ECF service in this matter.

5 5. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to remove email addresses associated with attorney ‘ Ethan Featherstone: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected] 8 DATED this 8 day of July 2025.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED. J pe O- 10 fb □□□ ‘\ 11 Hon. (Maximfliano D. Couvillier III United State's Magistrate Judge NOTICE 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 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. YIst, 951 F.2d 21 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, the plaintiff 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.