Top Media, LLC v. Loge Camps LLC

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Top Media, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00009-JAD-MDC 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S 5 vs. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY (ECF NO. 33) and APPROVING 6 Loge Camps LLC, PLAINTIFF’S SUBSTITUTION OF 7 Defendant. ATTORNEY (ECF NO. 34) 8 The Court has reviewed defense counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (ECF No. 33) 9 (“Withdraw Motion”) and the plaintiff’s Substitution of Attorneys (ECF No. 34) (“Substitution”). The 10 Court APPROVES the Substitution but DENIES without prejudice the Withdraw Motion for the reasons 11 below. 12 In the Withdraw Motion, attorneys from Holland & Hart LLP (“Holland”) and Perkins Coie LLP 13 (“Perkins”), Robert J. Cassity, David A. Perez, and Jessica R. Frenkel, request to withdraw as counsel 14 for defendant. While the motion is supported by sworn declarations by Ms. Frenkel and Mr. Cassity 15 (ECF Nos. 33-1, 33-2) it is missing a declaration from Mr. Perez. Mr. Perez’s status is also unclear. In 16 the motion, Mr. Perez is listed as a member of Perkins but the information he provided to Court’s docket 17 lists him as a member of another firm, Morrison & Foerster LLP. Moreover, the motion does not state 18 whether Holland attorney, Caitlan J. Bohn, also joins a request to withdraw. Ms. Bohn is listed as 19 counsel of record on the Court’s docket. Finally, the motion does not state whether defendant was 20 informed that it must retain new counsel and cannot proceed prose. See e.g., In re Am. W. Airlines, 40 21 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994). For these reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion without prejudice. 22 Addressing plaintiff’s Substitution, plaintiff seeks to substitute its current attorneys of record, 23 Robin P. Wright, Esq. and Stephanie A. Garabedian, Esq. from Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, for Kenneth 24 E. Hogan and Jeffrey L. Hulet from Hogan Hulet, PLLC. ECF No. 34. Ms. Wright and Ms. Garabedian 25 1 1 || consent to the substitution. Jd. Mr. Hogan and Mr. Hulet consent to being substituted in as plaintiff's 2 || attorneys of record. /d. Finding good cause and because plaintiff, Ms. Wright, Ms. Garabedian, Mr. 3 || Hogan, and Mr. Hulet consent, the Court approves the Substitution. 4 ACCORDINGLY, 5 IT IS ORDERED that: 6 1. Defense counsel’s Motion to Withdraw As Attorney (ECF No. 33) is DENIED without ’ prejudice. 2. Plaintiff's Substitution of Counsel (ECF No. 34) is APPROVED. ° 3. Kenneth E. Hogan and Jeffrey L. Hulet from Hogan Hulet, PLLC shall be substituted in 1 ° place of Robin P. Wright, Esq. and Stephanie A. Garabedian, Esq. from Wright, Finlay & 11 Zak, LLP as counsel of record and added from MC/ECF service in this matter. This means 12 that Kenneth E. Hogan and Jeffrey L. Hulet from Hogan Hulet, PLLC shall be terminated as 8 counsel of record for defendant Clifford Anderson and removed from CM/ECF service in this 14 matter. 15 DATED: February 19, 2026. 16 . > - IT IS SO ORDERED. JSS a

18 Hon. Maxi iliang’D. Youvillj r, III Uniizd States Magistrate Jpeige NOTICE 20 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to ofdefs and reports and 71 || -ecommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 23 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 74 |! time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). 25

1 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) 2 failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District 3 Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 4 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 5 Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any 6 change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, 7 or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 8 result in dismissal of the action.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3