Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lovelien v. U.S., 2:18-cv-02110-MMD-CWH. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20181221h28 Visitors: 17
Filed: Dec. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 19, 2018
Summary: ORDER C.W. HOFFMAN, JR. , Magistrate Judge . Presently before the court is plaintiffs Rick Lovelien and Steven Stewart's pro se motion to stay filing of pro hac vice application (ECF No. 27), filed on December 17, 2018. Defendants filed a response (ECF No. 28) on December 18, 2018. The court construes defendants' response as a response and countermotion. This case was filed in the District of Columbia by attorney Larry Klayman on behalf of plaintiffs and subsequently was transferred to thi
More

ORDER

Presently before the court is plaintiffs Rick Lovelien and Steven Stewart's pro se motion to stay filing of pro hac vice application (ECF No. 27), filed on December 17, 2018. Defendants filed a response (ECF No. 28) on December 18, 2018. The court construes defendants' response as a response and countermotion.

This case was filed in the District of Columbia by attorney Larry Klayman on behalf of plaintiffs and subsequently was transferred to this district. (Order (ECF No. 13).) Mr. Klayman has not filed a pro hac vice application in this district for this case. Plaintiffs request a 30-day stay of the filing deadline for the pro hac vice application, representing that they do not have counsel and they need time to consider whether to continue with this case in this district. The government does not oppose plaintiffs' motion to stay the deadline for any counsel to file a pro hac vice application, but it requests that all case deadlines be stayed for 30 days. It also requests that its response to the complaint be due 30 days after the plaintiffs secure counsel authorized to practice in this court or notify the court they intend to proceed pro se.

Having read and considered the parties' arguments, and good cause appearing, the court will stay all deadlines in this case for 30 days. Following the expiration of the stay, the parties must meet and confer and file a joint status report regarding plaintiffs' efforts to secure counsel and whether plaintiffs intend to proceed with this case.

If plaintiffs intend to proceed with this case, in the joint status report, the parties should propose a date certain for defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. The court declines to set a deadline for answering or otherwise responding to the complaint that is triggered by the date plaintiffs secure counsel or decide to proceed pro se. Defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint will continue to be stayed pending further court order setting that deadline.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs Rick Lovelien and Steven Stewart's pro se motion to stay filing of pro hac vice application (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED to the extent the court will stay all deadlines in this case until January 18, 2019, which is 30 days from the date of this order. The motion is denied in all other respects.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' countermotion (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED to the extent the court will stay all deadlines for 30 days. The countermotion is denied in all other respects.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is STAYED pending further court order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must meet and confer and file a joint status report at stated in this order by January 31, 2019.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer