Filed: Apr. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 13, 2017
Summary: ORDER GLORIA M. NAVARRO , Chief District Judge . Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 17), filed by Defendant Vincent Neil Wharton ("Defendant"). For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES as moot Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Kelly Guerrero ("Plaintiff") originally filed this lawsuit on July 14, 2016. (Compl., ECF No. 1). On October 25, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's third cause of action for attorney's f
Summary: ORDER GLORIA M. NAVARRO , Chief District Judge . Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 17), filed by Defendant Vincent Neil Wharton ("Defendant"). For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES as moot Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Kelly Guerrero ("Plaintiff") originally filed this lawsuit on July 14, 2016. (Compl., ECF No. 1). On October 25, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's third cause of action for attorney's fe..
More
ORDER
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 17), filed by Defendant Vincent Neil Wharton ("Defendant"). For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES as moot Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Kelly Guerrero ("Plaintiff") originally filed this lawsuit on July 14, 2016. (Compl., ECF No. 1). On October 25, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's third cause of action for attorney's fees. (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff did not file a response, and the deadline to do so has passed. Instead, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 18), removing as a cause of action the claim for attorney's fees.
II. DISCUSSION
Local Rule 7-2(d) provides that "[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion, except a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or a motion for attorney's fees, constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion." D. Nev. R. 7-2(d). Although Plaintiff failed to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint and removed the cause of action that Defendant sought to dismiss. As such, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint consents to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, thereby rendering the Motion moot.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 17), is DENIED as moot.
