Herrera v. 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedJune 3, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-00358
StatusUnknown

This text of Herrera v. 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC (Herrera v. 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Herrera v. 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC, (D. Nev. 2025).

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Rufina Herrera, Case No. 2:24-cv-00358-RFB-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 99 Cents Only Stores LLC d/b/a 99 Cents Only 9 Stores, a Foreign Limited-Liability Company; Does I through X, inclusive, and Roe 10 Corporations I through X, inclusive,

11 Defendants.

12 13 Lew Brandon, Jr., Esq. and Ryan Venci, Esq., of the Brandon | Smerber Law Firm move 14 to withdraw as counsel of record for Defendant 99 Cents Only Stores LLC. (ECF No. 13). 15 Counsel explains that 99 Cents Only has filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States 16 Bankruptcy Code and the Plan Administrator for 99 Cents Only’s Chapter 11 plan has instructed 17 counsel to take no further action in matters they are handling. The Court finds that counsel has 18 met the requirements of Local Rule IA 11-6(b). Additionally, no party has opposed the motion, 19 constituting their consent to the Court granting it under Local Rule 7-2(d). So, the Court grants 20 counsel’s motion. However, because it is a corporation, 99 Cents Only must retain counsel in this 21 action. See Reading Intern., Inc. v. Malulani Group, Ltd., 814 F.3d 1046, 1053 (9th Cir. 2016) 22 (explaining that corporations must be represented by counsel). 23 The Court also notes that the parties failed to file a joint status report on the most recent 24 deadline, April 30, 2025, as previously ordered by the Honorable District Judge Richard F. 25 Boulware, II. (ECF No. 11). For clarity, the Court orders a new deadline for the next joint status 26 report. Because 99 Cents Only is a corporate litigant, 99 Cents Only must retain new counsel 27 before filing the next joint status report. If 99 Cents Only cannot retain counsel before the joint 1 status report deadline, 99 Cents Only must include an explanation in the joint status report 2 regarding its efforts to obtain counsel. 3 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Lew Brandon, Jr., Esq. and Ryan Venci, Esq.’s 5 motion to withdraw (ECF No. 13) is granted. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to remove 6 Lew Brandon, Jr., Esq. and Ryan Venci, Esq. as counsel of record and from the electronic service 7 list for this case. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must file a joint status report updating the 9 Court on the status of the bankruptcy proceedings on or before December 5, 2025. 99 Cents 10 Only must either file this joint status report through counsel or update the Court within the report 11 on 99 Cents Only’s efforts to retain counsel. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to place the 13 address of 99 Cents Only’s Chapter 11 Plan Administrator on the docket:

14 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC 15 c/o Dana Kane, Chief Compliance Officer 16 META Advisors LLC Trustee for 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC 17 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 13th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-4003 18 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to mail this order 20 to 99 Cents Only Stores LLC through the address listed above. 21 22 DATED: June 3, 2025 23 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Herrera v. 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrera-v-99-cents-only-stores-llc-nvd-2025.