1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 CORP. STRATEGIC INSURANCE Case No. 2:25-cv-00696-NJK! 7 Plaintiff, Order v. 91 NHU-NGUYEN Q DO, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 On June 27, 2025, the Court ordered Defendants to respond to the complaint by July 21, 12] 2025. Docket No. 18. Defendants violated that order. On July 29, 2025, the Court ordered 13] Defendants to show cause, by August 12, 2025, why default should not be entered. Docket No. 14] 19. Defendants did not respond to that order to show cause, have not responded to the complaint, 15]| and have otherwise sought no relief since the order was issued. Given the circumstances, the entry 16] of default is warranted as to each Defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 17] 16(f).2 Accordingly, the Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to enter default against each Defendant. 18 Unless a motion to set aside default has been filed, Plaintiff must file a motion for default 19] judgment by September 29, 2025. That motion must include the required analysis and showings 20] for default judgment. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: August 29, 2025 23 7, a oo Nancy J. Koppe\, 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 I This case is referred to the undersigned magistrate judge as part of the opt-out program. See Docket Nos. 3, 4. 28 “Whether entry of default is appropriate is an issue that may be raised sua sponte.” Smith v. Saribay,

, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 2021) (collecting cases).