WAN v. PLUTE MORTGAGE LLC, 2:14-cv-01619-RFB-CWH. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20150114h50
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 12, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 12, 2015
Summary: ORDER C. W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s ("defendant") Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint (doc. # 6), filed January 9, 2015. Local Rule 7-5(b) provides that "[a]ll ex parte motions, applications or requests shall contain a statement showing good cause why the matter was submitted to the Court without notice to all parties." Civ.L.R. 7-5(b). In addition, Local Rule 7-5(c) provide
Summary: ORDER C. W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s ("defendant") Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint (doc. # 6), filed January 9, 2015. Local Rule 7-5(b) provides that "[a]ll ex parte motions, applications or requests shall contain a statement showing good cause why the matter was submitted to the Court without notice to all parties." Civ.L.R. 7-5(b). In addition, Local Rule 7-5(c) provides..
More
ORDER
C. W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s ("defendant") Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint (doc. # 6), filed January 9, 2015.
Local Rule 7-5(b) provides that "[a]ll ex parte motions, applications or requests shall contain a statement showing good cause why the matter was submitted to the Court without notice to all parties." Civ.L.R. 7-5(b). In addition, Local Rule 7-5(c) provides that "[m]otions, applications or requests may be submitted ex parte only for compelling reasons, and not for unopposed or emergency motions." Civ.L.R. 7-5(c).
Here, defendant's ex parte motion contains neither a statement establishing "good cause," nor a statement demonstrating "compelling reasons." Having failed to do so, defendant's ex parte motion must be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint (doc. # 6) is denied.
Source: Leagle
