1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 Maria Noemi B. Bautista, Case No. 2:25-cv-01226-NJK 6 Plaintiff(s), ORDER V. [Docket Nos. 16, 17, 18] 8] Reynaldo P. Gacad, 9 Defendant(s). 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to admit proof of service, Docket No. 16, 11] along with two motions for entry of default, Docket Nos. 17-18.? Plaintiff has now filed a proof 12] of service evidencing personal service on Defendant on October 21, 2025. Docket No. 16-3 at 2. 13], Moreover, Defendant has not appeared to defend this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to 14] admit proof of service and Plaintiff's motions for entry of default are GRANTED. Plaintiff is 15] advised that any motion for default judgment? must include discussion of all pertinent 16]| considerations, see, e.g., Eitel v. McCool,

(9th Cir. 1986), and show that 17|| this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant, see, e.g., Tuli v. Republic of Iraq, 18]

(9th Cir. 1999). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: December 5, 2025

Nancy J -Koppe 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 ' This case is proceeding before the undersigned magistrate judge as part of the opt-out 35 consent program. See Docket Nos. 3-4; see also Gen. Order 2023-11. ? The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants. Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007). 27 > The pending motions for default reference entry of judgment. To be clear, default judgment entails a two-step process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. The Court herein enters default. 28] Plaintiff must now file a separate motion for default judgment if she desires such relief.