United States v. Modina

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedFebruary 23, 2024
Docket2:14-cv-00474
StatusUnknown

This text of United States v. Modina (United States v. Modina) 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
United States v. Modina, (D. Nev. 2024).

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 United States of America, 4 2:14-cv-00474-JAD-MDC Plaintiff(s), 5 vs. Order granting motion to compel (ECF No. 38) 6

7 Bill Sunga Modina, d/b/a 5M Financial and 6M Financial, 8 Defendant(s). 9 The Court has reviewed plaintiff United States of America’s motion to compel discovery. ECF No. 10 38. The Court grants the motion on the merits. The Court also grants the motion because plaintiff did not 11 oppose the motion. Per LR 7-3(d), ‘[t]he failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support 12 of the motion constitutes a consent to the denial of the motion.” Id. 13 IT IS ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiff United States of America’s motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED. 15 2. Defendant Bill Sunga Modina, d/b/a 5M Financial and 6M Financial has until Friday, March 16 15, 2024 to answer the plaintiff’s discovery requests. 17

18 NOTICE 19 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 20 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 21 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 22 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 23 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections 24 within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the 25 right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court.

5 Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 3 || 454 (th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, plaintiffs must immediately file written notification with the 4 || court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s 5 || attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this 6 || rule may result in dismissal of the action. “p, Dated this 23rd day of February 2024. Lo MY Dy 9 fr jf \ ¢_{ Maximiliano . Couv} lier TIT United States Magistate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

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

Related

Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Modina, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-modina-nvd-2024.