Euro Motor Sport Inc. v. ARB Las Vegas
2:21-cv-00177
D. Nev.Jun 27, 2023Background
- Plaintiffs Euro Motor Sport Inc. and Sammie Benson sought relief against defendant ARB Las Vegas in a case pending in the District of Nevada.
- ARB’s counsel moved to withdraw on March 24, 2023; the magistrate judge granted the motion on March 28 and ordered ARB to retain counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance by April 27, 2023.
- The magistrate judge twice warned ARB that failure to retain counsel could result in entry of default; the court sua sponte extended the deadline but ARB still did not retain counsel or request another extension.
- Magistrate Judge Weksler issued a Report & Recommendation (R&R) on June 6, 2023, recommending entry of default against ARB for failure to comply with the court’s order; ARB did not file objections by the local‑rule deadline.
- The district court reviewed the matter (noting that no review is required absent objections but conducting de novo review nonetheless) and concluded other sanctions were unavailable because ARB willfully refused to comply.
- The district court adopted the R&R in full on June 27, 2023, directed the Clerk to enter default against ARB Las Vegas, and ordered plaintiffs to file a Rule 55 motion for default judgment by July 24, 2023.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default should be entered for failure to retain counsel and comply with court orders | Default appropriate because ARB willfully failed to retain counsel and ignored court orders, delaying the case | ARB made no filing, retained no counsel, and raised no objection | Court adopted R&R and ordered Clerk to enter default; plaintiffs to file Rule 55 default‑judgment motion |
| Standard of review for an unopposed R&R | R&R should be adopted (no objection was filed) | ARB filed no objections or arguments | Court noted that review is not required absent objections but performed de novo review and nonetheless adopted the R&R |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (district courts need not review magistrate R&Rs de novo when no objections are filed)
- United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (no review required of a magistrate judge's R&R absent objections)
- Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (D. Ariz. 2003) (same principle regarding objections to R&Rs)
- In re Am. W. Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 1994) (corporations must appear in court through licensed counsel)
- United States v. High Country Broadcasting Co., 3 F.3d 1244 (9th Cir. 1993) (default appropriate when a corporation disobeys orders to retain counsel)
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (factors governing entry of default judgment)