Hill v. Wynn Resorts Limited

Opinion

1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4

5 Webb Hill, Case No.: 2:21-cv-02113-CDS-DJA

6 Plaintiff Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief 7 v. and Motion for Entry of Default Judgment/Default 8 Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, et al., [ECF Nos. 60, 61] 9 Defendants

10 11 Plaintiff Webb Hill, appearing pro se, moves the court for entry of a default judgment 12 against defendant Wynn Las Vegas (the Wynn), and seeks a general request for relief. I find 13 these motions suitable for disposition without a hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; LR 78-1. After 14 consideration of the moving papers and applicable law, I deny both motions for the reasons 15 stated below. 16 I. Motion for relief 17 Hill filed a one-page motion for relief “based on present evidence filed in [the instant] 18 case.” ECF No. 60. He requests that the “court look[] at several factors number one prevailing on 19 the merits showing irreparable injury to [him] if not granted . . .” Id. While a pro se litigant's 20 submissions are “to be liberally construed, and . . . must be held to less stringent standards than 21 formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[,]” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), pro se litigants 22 still “are not excused from following court rules.” Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 382 23 (9th Cir. 1997). Hill has failed to support his motion for relief with a memorandum of points and 24 authorities. See generally ECF No. 60. This district’s local rules require all motions to be supported 1 by a memorandum of points and authorities. LR 7-2(a). “The failure of a moving party to file 2 points and authorities in support of the motion constitutes a consent to the denial of the 3 motion.” LR 7-2(d). Even liberally construing Hill’s motion, it is unclear what relief he seeks, or 4 to the extent he seeks injunctive relief, how he may support issuance of any injunction. Hill’s 5 failure to file a coherent memorandum of points and authorities in support of his motion 6 constitutes a consent to the denial of the motion under Local Rule 7-2(d). Therefore, I deny 7 Hill’s motion for relief. 8 II. Motion for entry of default judgment 9 When initially represented by counsel in this action, Hill filed a complaint alleging 10 unlawful workplace discrimination and retaliation. ECF No. 1. The proof of service, dated 11 December 9, 2021, demonstrates that the Wynn was served with a copy of the summons and 12 complaint. ECF No. 9-1. The Wynn made its first appearance on January 11, 2022, seeking an 13 extension of time to answer Hill’s complaint. ECF No. 7. After being granted several extensions 14 of time to respond, the Wynn filed its answer to Hill’s amended complaint. ECF No. 29. 15 Although Hill’s motion is titled “Motion to Entry Default Judgment[,]” upon review, much of the 16 substance of his filing is essentially a motion to compel responses to subpoenas. See generally ECF 17 No. 61. Hill has already moved thrice to compel compliance with his subpoenas and decisions on 18 those motions remain pending. ECF Nos. 49, 54, 55. The Wynn responded to those motions 19 (ECF Nos. 56-59); it seems that, rather than file replies to the Wynn’s responses, Hill has 20 instead filed the instant motion for default judgment. 21 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party must file a responsive pleading 22 within twenty-one days after being served with a summons and complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 12(a)(1)(A)(i). Under Rule 55, “[w]hen a party 'has failed to plead or otherwise defend' against a 24 pleading listed in Rule 7(a), entry of default under Rule 55(a) must precede grant of a default

2 1 judgment under Rule 55(b).” Johnson v. Dayton Elec. Mfg. Co., 140 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1998) 2 (citation and internal quotes omitted). Here, as evidenced from the filings, defendant Wynn has 3 appeared in this case and has filed a responsive pleading; therefore, default judgment is not 4 appropriate. 5 Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for relief (ECF No. 6 60) is DENIED. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment (ECF 8 No. 61) is DENIED. 9 DATED: October 17, 2022 10 ______________________________________ Cristina D. Silva 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3