United States District Court, D. Nevada
M. Navarro, District Judge United States District Court
before the Court is the Objection, (ECF No. 28), filed by
Plaintiff Greentree Financial Group, Inc.
(“Plaintiff”), which objects to the Honorable
Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 27).
Interest Party Sheldon Drobny filed a Response to the
Objection, (ECF No. 29), and Plaintiff filed a Supplement,
(ECF No. 30). For the reasons stated herein, the R&R is
ADOPTED in full.
24, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion
for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 23), for failure to satisfy
its burden of showing proper service had been effectuated.
(Order, ECF No. 25). The Court ordered that, to the extent
Plaintiff continued to seek default judgment, it had to file
its second renewed motion for default judgment by August 7,
2017. (Id.). Plaintiff failed to file a motion by
August 16, 2017, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause,
requiring Plaintiff to demonstrate why the case “should
not be dismissed for failure to effectuate service and/or
failure to prosecute.” (Order to Show Cause, ECF No.
26). The Court gave Plaintiff until August 23, 2017, to file
its response. (Id.). In the alternative, the Court
permitted Plaintiff to file a second renewed motion for
default judgment by this date. (Id.). Plaintiff
failed to do either. Accordingly, on August 25, 2017, Judge
Koppe issued an R&R recommending that Plaintiff’s
case be dismissed for failure to effectuate service and/or
failure to prosecute. (R&R, ECF No. 27).
may file specific written objections to the findings and
recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made
pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);
D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the
Court must make a de novo determination of those
portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b).
Objection, Plaintiff argues that the Court should set aside
the R&R because there exists excusable neglect under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 6(b) for
its failure to respond to Judge Koppe’s prior Orders.
(Obj. 4:2–5:28, ECF No. 28). Under FRCP 6(b), the Court
may, for good cause, grant an extension of time “on a
motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to
act because of excusable neglect.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
to Plaintiff, “[w]hen Plaintiff reviewed the docket
after the July 27, 2017 order, it became clear that World
Nation’s registered agent Clifford Neuman had resigned
as its registered agent on May 16, 2016.” (Id.
4:9–11). Based on this discovery, Plaintiff claims that
“it was unable to answer the Court’s Order by the
due date of August 23, 2017 as it was not possible to remedy
this service issue that quickly.” (Id.
4:16–18). Plaintiff’s argument fails for numerous
to date, Plaintiff has not filed a motion to extend time as
required under FRCP 6(b) and the local rules. The instant
Objection is Plaintiff’s first mention of any need for
additional time. Second, Plaintiff’s explanation that
it was “unable to answer the Court’s Order”
is without merit. While Plaintiff claims it did not have
enough time to properly effectuate service of process before
the Court’s August 23, 2017 deadline, that is not a
reason for failing to respond to the Court’s Orders and
not timely seeking an extension of deadlines. Indeed,
Plaintiff had two separate opportunities to comply with Judge
Koppe’s rulings and failed to abide by both deadlines.
(See Order, ECF No. 25) (permitting Plaintiff to
file a renewed motion for default judgment); (Order to Show
Cause, ECF No. 26) (directing Plaintiff to demonstrate why
the case should not be dismissed “for failure to
effectuate service and/or failure to prosecute”).
Whether it was “possible to remedy” the service
issues by the show cause deadline is a separate issue from
Plaintiffs obligation to comply with the Court’s
Orders. Accordingly, the Court finds no basis to depart from
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R, (ECF No. 27), is
ADOPTED in FULL.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to