{ Converted to text using OCR. The PDF is the controlling document. JM}
REC’D & FILED 2012 SEP 24 PM 1:32
ALAN GLOVER CLERK
BY DEPUTY _____________
Case No. 09 0C 00579 1B
Dept. No. I
In The First Judicial
District Court of the State of Nevada
In and for Carson City
|
JED MARGOLIN, an individual, Plaintiff, VS.
OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a California corporation, OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, REZA ZANDIAN aka GOLAMREZA ZANDIANJAZI aka GHOLAM REZA ZANDIAN aka REZA JAZI aka J. REZA JAZI aka G. REZA JAZI aka GHONONREZA ZANDIAN JAZI, an individual, DOE Companies 1- 10, DOE Corporations 11 -20, and DOE Individuals 21-30, Defendants. |
DEFAULT |
On March 14, 2012, Defendants Optima Technology Corporation, a California corporation, and Optima Technology Corporation, a Nevada corporation, both filed a "General Denial" in this action. On June 28, 2012, this Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Appearance of Counsel for Optima Technology Corporations, or in the Alternative, Motion to Strike General Denial of Optima Technology Corporations. A true and correct copy of said Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Because there has been no appearance of counsel for the Optima Technology Corporations, as ordered, the Optima Technology Corporations' General Denial is stricken, and the Optima Technology Corporations are in default for failure to plead or otherwise defend as required by law.
-1-
DEFAULT is therefore entered against Defendants Optima Technology Corporation, a California corporation, and Optima Technology Corporation, a Nevada corporation this 24th day of September, 2012.
Alan Glover
CLERK OF THE COURT
By: __________________
DEPUTY CLERK
-2-
Exhibit 1
REC’D & FILED 2012 JUN 28 AM 1:13
ALAN GLOVER CLERK
BY DEPUTY _____________
Case No. 09 OC 00579 1B
Dept. No. I
In The First Judicial
District Court of the State of Nevada
In and for Carson City
|
JED MARGOLIN, an individual, Plaintiff, VS.
OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a California corporation, OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, REZA ZANDIAN aka GOLAMREZA ZANDIANJAZI aka GHOLAM REZA ZANDIAN aka REZA JAZI aka J. REZA JAZI aka G. REZA JAZI aka GHONONREZA ZANDIAN JAZI, an individual, DOE Companies 1- 10, DOE Corporations 11 -20, and DOE Individuals 21-30, Defendants. |
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FOR OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY ORPORATIONS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO STRIKE GENERAL DENIAL OF OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATIONS
|
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Jed Margolin's motion for an order compelling Defendants Optima Technology Corporation, a California corporation, and Optima Technology Corporation, a Nevada corporation (collectively "Optima Technology Corporations") to retain legal counsel, or, in the alternative, to strike the General Denial of those Corporations filed on March 13, 2012.
Upon consideration of the foregoing documents, and the Court deeming itself fully advised of the matter, the Court hereby enters its Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion and finds and orders as follows:
Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on December 11, 2009. After extensive briefing regarding service on Defendants concluded, and after the Court denied Defendants'
-1-
Motions to Dismiss, Defendants served two "General Denials." The first General Denial was served on March 5, 2012 on behalf of the individual Reza Zandian aka Golamreza Zandianjazi aka Gholam Reza Zandian aka Reza Jazi aka J. Reza Jazi aka G. Reza Jazi aka Ghononreza Zandian Jazi. The second General Denial was served on March 13, 2012 on behalf of the Optima Technology Corporations.
On March 13, 2012, Defense counsel moved to withdraw from representing all of the individual and corporate Defendants in this action. On March 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a non-opposition to Defense counsel's Motion to Withdraw and on April 26, 2012, this Court granted Defense counsel's Motion to Withdraw. No appearance of counsel has been entered for any of the Defendants as of this date.
NRS 7.285 provides that "[n]o person shall practice law in this state unless he is an active member of the State Bar of Nevada pursuant to the rules of the supreme court." The statute further provides that any person who practices law who is not an active member of the State Bar of Nevada is guilty of a misdemeanor. SCR 77 provides that, with certain inapplicable exceptions, no person may practice law as an officer of the courts in this state who is not an active member of the state bar. Nevada case law is clear on this issue as well. See State v. Stu's Bail Bonds, 115 Nev. 436, n. 1, 991 P.2d 469, 470 n. 1 (1999) ("business entities are not permitted to appear, or file documents, in proper person"); Salmon v. Newell, 110 Nev. 1333, 1336, 885 P. 2d 607, 608 (1994) (observing that no statute or rule permits a non-lawyer to represent an entity and concluding that an entity cannot proceed in proper person); Sunde v. Contel of California, 112 Nev. 541, 542-43, 915 P.2d 298, 299 (1996) (explaining that non-lawyers may not represent entities in court).
In addition, courts may strike pleadings when a corporation has failed to retain counsel. See Trustees of Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. O'Donnell, 2007 WL 672528, *2 (D. Nev. 2007) (granting motion to compel and alternative motion to strike answer) (citations omitted).
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Optima Technology Corporations cannot defend, prosecute, or participate in this action without counsel licensed in the State of
-2-
Nevada. In Plaintiffs Motion, Plaintiff requested that the Optima Technology Corporations be Drdered to retain legal counsel no later than June 15, 2012. Plaintiff also requested that the March 13, 2012 General Denial filed by the Optima Technology Corporations be stricken if the Optima Technology Corporations did not retain new counsel by June 15, 2012. Pursuant to the above findings, the Court further finds that Plaintiffs requests should be granted with the Optima Technology Corporations now being given until July 15, 2012 to retain counsel or their General Denial will be stricken.
THEREFORE, Plaintiff fed Margolin's Motion to Compel Appearance of Counsel for the Optima Technology Corporations or in the Alternative Motion to Strike the General Denial of the Optima Technology Corporations is GRANTED as follows:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Optima Technology Corporations must retain counsel and that counsel must enter an appearance in this matter on behalf of the Optima Technology Corporations by July 15, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if no appearance is entered on behalf of the Optima Technology Corporations by July 15, 2012, the Optima Technology Corporations' General Denial, filed on March 13, 2012, shall be stricken.
Dated this 28th day of June 2012.
JAMES T. RUSSEL
___________________
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
-3-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 28th day of June, 2012, I placed a copy of the foregoing Order in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Matthew D. Francis, Esq.
Adam P. McMillen, Esq.
5371 Kietzke Lane
Reno, NV 89511
Reza Zandian
8775 Costa Verde Blvd. Apt #501
San Diego, CA 82122
____________________
-4-