Munjed al Muderis, et al. v. Fred Hernandez, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6] Munjed al Muderis, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00876-GMN-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order v. [Docket No. 244] 9| Fred Hernandez, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is a motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendant Fred Hernandez 12} filed by attorneys Delestya Davis and David Feldman. Docket No. 244. No response has been 13] filed. For good cause shown, the motion to withdraw is GRANTED. The Clerk’s Office is 14] INSTRUCTED to update the docket to reflect that Hernandez is proceeding pro se and to include 15] his contact information identified in the certificate of service. See Docket No. 244 at 4.' Although 16] Hernandez is now proceeding pro se, he is cautioned that he must still comply with all orders and 17] rules. Hernandez is also reminded specifically that he must promptly notify the Court of any 18] change to his contact information. Local Rule IA 3-1. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: February 17, 2026

Nancy J. Koppe\ 22 United Sias >Magistrate Judge 23), ———__"W[/{$ ' There is no attestation specifically as to the nature of the address provided by Hernandez; 24! an address is simply identified in the papers without explanation. See Docket No. 244 at 4, Docket No. 244-1 at 2-3. Moreover, it appears that the address may be a virtual office. See United States vy. Perea-Rey, 680 F.3d 1179, 1182 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (courts may take judicial notice of Google maps and related images); see also, e.g., Sanchez v. Hosp. Corp. of Am., Case No. 2:25-cv-00618- 26] ART-NJK, Docket No. 22 (D. Nev. June 2, 2025) (order to show cause regarding out-of-state counsel’s compliance with local rules, noting that 304 S. Jones Blvd appeared to be a virtual office 27| space rather than a bona fide office). As no opposition was filed to the instant motion raising any concern with the ability to contact Hernandez moving forward, however, the Court grants the 28] motion to withdraw.