Umbach Medical Group, PLLC, et al. v. Elevance Health Inc., et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 1, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02159
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 || Umbach Medical Group, PLLC, et al., No. 2:23-ev-02159-CDS-MDC 4 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO > VS: WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY (ECF No. 52) 6 || Elevance Health Inc., et al., 7 Defendants. 8 The Court has reviewed the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (ECF No. 52) 9 || (“Motion”). Defendants request for the withdrawal of their counsel of record in this matter, David Astur, 10 || Esq. ECF No. 52. Defendants state that Mr. Astur is no longer part of Peterson Baker, PLLC (‘Peterson 11 || Baker”). ECF No. 52. Beatty Peterson, Esq. of Peterson Baker and Thomas C. Hardy, Esq. of Crowell & 12 || Moring LLP (admitted pro hac vice) will continue as counsel for defendants. /d. For good cause shown 13 || and because the Motions are unopposed, the Court grants the Motion. The Court also sua sponte 14 ||removes Mr. Astur from the CM/ECF electronic service list in this matter. 15 ACCORDINGLY, 16 IT IS ORDERED that: 17 1. The Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (ECF No. 52) is GRANTED. 18 2. David Astur, Esq., is to be removed as counsel of record for defendants and removed from 19 CM/ECF service in this matter. 20 DATED: October 1, 2025 21 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Hen. Maxifniliang . Couvillier TI 24 45nited Pie iieorne Judge 25

1 NOTICE 2 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 3 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 4 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 5 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 6 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). 7 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) 8 failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District 9 Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 10 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 11 Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any 12 change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, 13 or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 14 result in dismissal of the action.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25