Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

CHARI FETROW-FIX v. HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT, INC., : 2:10-cv-00560-RLH-PAL. (2012)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20120511956 Visitors: 9
Filed: May 09, 2012
Latest Update: May 09, 2012
Summary: ORDER (Motion for Reconsideration—#114) ROGER L. HUNT, District Judge. Before the Court is an Order (#112) entered by the Honorable Peggy A. Leen, Magistrate Judge, regarding Plaintiffs' Chari Fetrow-Fix and Thomas Soranno's Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Action (#80). Plaintiff Thomas Soranno filed Objections to Magistrate Judge Leen's Order (#114) in accordance with Rule IB 3-1 of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
More

ORDER

(Motion for Reconsideration—#114)

ROGER L. HUNT, District Judge.

Before the Court is an Order (#112) entered by the Honorable Peggy A. Leen, Magistrate Judge, regarding Plaintiffs' Chari Fetrow-Fix and Thomas Soranno's Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Action (#80).

Plaintiff Thomas Soranno filed Objections to Magistrate Judge Leen's Order (#114) in accordance with Rule IB 3-1 of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Defendants Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., and Harrah's Laughlin, Inc., filed a Response (#115) to the Objections, and this matter was referred for consideration. Plaintiff filed a Reply (#116) to Defendants' Response, but because the rules of civil procedure to not allow for a reply in support of objections to a magistrate judge's order, the Court will not consider it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; LR IB 3-1, 3-2.

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C) and Local Rule IB 3-1 and determines that the Order (#112) is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and should be affirmed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Leen's Order (#112) is AFFIRMED, Plaintiff's Objections are overruled, and Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (#114) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Reply (#118) is GRANTED.

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