United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is Magistrate Judge Koppe's report and
recommendation following an order to show cause as to why the
defendants should not be severed and all but the first-named
defendant dismissed. (ECF No. 27). Plaintiff ME2 Productions,
Inc., filed an objection. (ECF No. 36). Defendant Nathan
Silavong filed a notice that he does not object “to be
severed and dismissed for (sic) [this case].” (ECF No.
32). He filed an objection too, but provided no argument in
support of the objection. (ECF No. 35).
before the court is plaintiff's motion for entry of
clerk's default. (ECF No. 30).
before the court is defendants Jose Leyva's and Brigida
Pastrana's motion to dismiss or sever for misjoinder.
(ECF No. 24). Magistrate Judge Koppe filed a report and
recommendation that recommends denying this motion as moot.
(ECF No. 28). Plaintiff objected. (ECF No. 36).
present case is one of many filed by plaintiff against
numerous Doe defendants. Exhibit 1 to ME2's objection
contains its memorandum and points of authority to support
its objections to the instant report and recommendation. (ECF
No. 36-1). The exhibit is a carbon copy of plaintiff's
objections in the case of ME2 Productions, Inc. v.
Bayu, case no. 2:17-cv-00724-JCM-NJK. The court issued
an order in Bayu that adopted Magistrate Judge
Koppe's report and recommendation in that case and
severed all but the first-named defendant. For the same
reasons, the court finds severance here is appropriate. The
remaining first-named defendant who will not be dismissed is
motion for entry of clerk's default names Nathan Silavong
as one of the defendants against whom the plaintiff seeks
entry of default. (ECF No. 30). With regard to the other
defendants, the motion is moot.
filed the operative amended complaint in this matter on March
3, 2017. (ECF No. 8). Nathan Silavong was served on May 2,
2017, and needed to file an answer to the complaint by May
15, 2017-before the deadline to file an answer-pro
se defendant Silavong filed a “notice”
regarding the amended complaint, stating the following:
it may concern;
I, Nathan Silavong, have received the summons for a response
requested by HAMRICK & EVANS, LLP and/or United States
District Court for the District of Nevada. I will not settle
for a fine nor am I guilty of any illegal activities. On
January 25, 2017, at approximately 04:30 P.M., I contacted
Century Link in regards to my first letter from HAMRICK &
EVANS, LLP stating that I am accused of illegally downloading
a motion picture and/or responsible for the illegal
downloading of a motion picture. I spoke with Emily employee
#AB67686, which advised me that if any illegal activity were
to occur on my internet account, my account would have been
suspended and I would no longer have internet service (which
did not happen). On May 3, 2017, at approximately 01:30 P.M.
I spoke with Century Link again, after receiving the summons.
I spoke with a Tech Support named Keith. He stated the same
as Emily from before and reassured me that there was no
illegal activities on my account on specified date. [signed
Nathan Silavong with address].
defendant Silavong has attempted to participate in this
matter twice more, albeit without the aid of an attorney. On
June 21, 2017, Silavong mailed a letter to the court stating
that he does “not object to be severed and dismissed,
” referring to Magistrate Judge Koppe's report and
recommendation. (ECF No. 32). On June 26, 2017, Silavong
filed another document stating that he objects “to not
be severed and dismissed without prejudices (sic).”
(ECF No. 35).
court must construe pro se filings liberally in the
interests of justice and deciding cases on the merits.
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(“A document filed pro se is to be liberally
construed, and a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”) (internal
quotations and citations omitted); Eitel v. McCool,
782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that a court
must consider, as a factor towards whether to enter default
judgment, “the strong policy underlying the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the
Silavong's May 15, 2017 does not explicitly style itself
an “answer” to the complaint, it clearly
constitutes a general denial of the central allegations
against Silavong in the operative amended complaint, and
therefore, this court will liberally construe the document as
Silavong's answer to the complaint. (See ECF No.
20). Accordingly, this court will deny the motion for entry
of clerk's default.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Koppe's report
and recommendation (ECF No. 27) be, and the same hereby is,
ADOPTED in part and ...