El Sensoussi v. SF Markets, LLC

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA Helmi El Sensoussi, Case No.: 2:25-cv-00600-RFB-MDC 4 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO vs. REMOVE ATTORNEY FROM ELECTRONIC SERVICE LIST (ECF NO. 16) SF Markets, LLC, et al., 8 Defendants.

9 The Court has reviewed the Motion to Remove Attorney from Electronic Service List (ECF No. 16) (“Motion”). Defendant SF Markets, LLC dba Sprouts Farmers Market (“Sprouts”) requests for the removal of its Wilson Elser counsel of record, Bailee Reese, Esq. and James Lovett, Esq., from the CM/ECF electronic service list in this matter. ECF No. 16. Sprouts states that Ms. Reese and Mr. Lovett are no longer working on this case and have been replaced by Wilson Elser attorneys Charles Simmons and Alexandra McLeod. Id. The Court also notes that Ms. Reese and Mr. Lovett are no longer listed as attorneys at Wilson Elser. For good cause shown and because the Motions are unopposed, the Court grants the Motions. The Court also sua sponte terminates Ms. Reese and Mr. Lovett as counsel of record for Sprouts in this matter.

18 // // // // // // // // 1 ACCORDINLY, 2 IT IS ORDERED that: 3 1. The Motion to Remove Attorney from Electronic Service List (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. ‘ 2. Bailee Reese, Esq. shall be terminated as counsel of record for defendant SF Markets, LLC ° dba Sprouts Farmers Market and removed from CM/ECF service in this matter.

7 3. James Lovett, Esq. shall be terminated as counsel of record for defendant SF Markets, LLC 8 dba Sprouts Farmers Market and removed from CM/ECF service in this matter.

10 DATED: September 23, 2025 IT IS SO ORDERED. Je? a 12 Hon, Maximifiand /Couvillier IIT United Sat Mist Judge 8 NOTICE 4 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 '6 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).

9 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 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.