throbber
Case 2:14-cv-00474-JAD-MDC Document 40 Filed 02/23/24 Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`United States of America,
` Plaintiff(s),
`
`vs.
`
`
`Bill Sunga Modina, d/b/a 5M Financial and 6M
`Financial,
` Defendant(s).
`
`
`
`2:14-cv-00474-JAD-MDC
`
`
`Order granting motion to compel (ECF No. 38)
`
`
`
`The Court has reviewed plaintiff United States of America’s motion to compel discovery. ECF No.
`
`38. The Court grants the motion on the merits. The Court also grants the motion because plaintiff did not
`
`oppose the motion. Per LR 7-3(d), ‘[t]he failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support
`
`of the motion constitutes a consent to the denial of the motion.” Id.
`
`IT IS ORDERED that:
`
`
`
`1. Plaintiff United States of America’s motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED.
`
`2. Defendant Bill Sunga Modina, d/b/a 5M Financial and 6M Financial has until Friday, March
`
`15, 2024 to answer the plaintiff’s discovery requests.
`
`
`
`NOTICE
`
`Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and
`
`recommendations 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
`
`may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified
`
`time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections
`
`within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00474-JAD-MDC Document 40 Filed 02/23/24 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court.
`
`Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452,
`
`454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, plaintiffs must immediately file written notification with the
`
`court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s
`
`attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this
`
`rule may result in dismissal of the action.
`
`Dated this 23rd day of February 2024.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________________
`Maximiliano D. Couvillier III
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket