LEIGH v. SALAZAR, 3:11-cv-00608-HDM-WGC. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20120306a82
Visitors: 12
Filed: Mar. 05, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 05, 2012
Summary: ORDER HOWARD D. McKIBBEN, District Judge. On February 17, 2012, plaintiff filed a "Notice of Recent Case of Significance Having Effect on this Court's Ruling (Dk. 30) that Denied Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dk. 12) Without Prejudice" (#33), in which the plaintiff suggests that the court should sua sponte reconsider its order of January 26, 2012. The court is disinclined to sua sponte reconsider its order. Nevertheless, plaintiff shall have up to and including March 20, 2
Summary: ORDER HOWARD D. McKIBBEN, District Judge. On February 17, 2012, plaintiff filed a "Notice of Recent Case of Significance Having Effect on this Court's Ruling (Dk. 30) that Denied Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dk. 12) Without Prejudice" (#33), in which the plaintiff suggests that the court should sua sponte reconsider its order of January 26, 2012. The court is disinclined to sua sponte reconsider its order. Nevertheless, plaintiff shall have up to and including March 20, 20..
More
ORDER
HOWARD D. McKIBBEN, District Judge.
On February 17, 2012, plaintiff filed a "Notice of Recent Case of Significance Having Effect on this Court's Ruling (Dk. 30) that Denied Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dk. 12) Without Prejudice" (#33), in which the plaintiff suggests that the court should sua sponte reconsider its order of January 26, 2012. The court is disinclined to sua sponte reconsider its order. Nevertheless, plaintiff shall have up to and including March 20, 2012, in which to reformulate its notice into a motion for reconsideration. In the event plaintiff does so, the defendants shall have up to and including April 4, 2012, in which to file a response to any such motion for reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
