Trustees of the Construction Industry and Laborers Health and Welfare Trust et al v. Williams Brother, Inc.
Filing
19
ORDER Granting 16 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney. Not later than March 1, 2013, Defendants' withdrawing counsel of record Robert Robbins is ORDERED to serve this order on Defendants Michael Peek and Williams Brother, Inc. and to file a proof of service. Defendant Michael Peek is hereby ORDERED to file no later than March 26, 2013, a certification that he will be proceeding in this case pro se or an appearance of newly retained counsel. Williams Brother, Inc. is hereby ORDERED to retain counsel and have counsel enter a notice of appearance in this case no later than March 26, 2013. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall add the last known address (as listed in the order) for Defendants Williams Brother, Inc. and Michael Peek to the civil docket and serve Defendants with a copy of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/26/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
TRUSTEES OF THE CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY & LABORERS HEALTH
& WELFARE TRUST, et al.,
9
Plaintiff,
10
vs.
11
WILLIAMS BROTHER, INC., et al.,
12
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:12-cv-00810-KJD-NJK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
(Docket No. 16)
13
On February 22, 2013, the Court issued a minute order scheduling a hearing on Pengilly
14
15
Robbins Slater’s motion to withdraw as Defendants’ counsel. Docket Nos. 16, 17. The Court held
16
the hearing as scheduled, but neither Defendant appeared as ordered. For the reasons stated at the
17
hearing and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS that motion to withdraw.1 Not later than
18
March 1, 2013, Defendants’ withdrawing counsel of record, Robert Robbins, is ORDERED to serve
19
this order on Defendants Michael Peek and Williams Brother, Inc. And to file a proof of service.
20
Defendant Michael Peek is hereby ORDERED to file, no later than March 26, 2013, a
21
certification that he will be proceeding in this case pro se or an appearance of newly retained
22
counsel. If no such certification or appearance is made, the Court will recommend that default
23
judgment be entered against Defendant Michael Peek. The Court hereby CONTINUES the
24
deadline for Mr. Peek to oppose the motion for summary judgment until 14 days after such
25
certification or appearance is made.
26
27
28
1
Certain aspects of this Order conflict with rulings made orally at the February 26, 2013
hearing. This Order supersedes any rulings made at the hearing that conflict with this Order.
1
In light of the Court granting the motion to withdraw as counsel, Defendant Williams
2
Brother, Inc. is not currently represented by counsel. Corporations may appear in federal court only
3
through licensed counsel. United States v. High Country Broad. Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th
4
Cir. 1993). As such, Williams Brother, Inc. is hereby ORDERED to retain counsel and have
5
counsel enter a notice of appearance in this case no later than March 26, 2013. If no such notice is
6
made, the Court will recommend that default judgment be entered against Williams Brother, Inc.
7
The Court hereby CONTINUES the deadline for Williams Brother, Inc. to oppose the motion for
8
summary judgment until 14 days after such appearance is made.
9
10
11
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall:
1.
to the civil docket:
12
6440 Sky Point Drive Suite 140-385
Las Vegas Nevada 89131
(702) 219-1413
13
14
2606 East La Madre Way
North Las Vegas, Nevada 89081
(702) 219-1413
15
16
Add the last known address of Defendants Williams Brother, Inc. and Michael Peek
2.
Serve Defendants with a copy of this order at their last known addresses listed above.
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
DATED: February 26, 2013.
20
21
22
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
