INDUSTRIAL PIPING, INC. v. ZHANG, 3:14-CV-537-RJC-DCK. (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20150224d09
Visitors: 2
Filed: Feb. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 20, 2015
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. KEESLER, Magistrate Judge. THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on "Plaintiff's Motion To Consolidate Its Responses In Opposition To The Motions To Dismiss/Transfer Venue Filed By Defendants Paul, Zhang, And Liu" (Document No. 53). This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, the undersigned will deny the motion. The undersigned appreci
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. KEESLER, Magistrate Judge. THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on "Plaintiff's Motion To Consolidate Its Responses In Opposition To The Motions To Dismiss/Transfer Venue Filed By Defendants Paul, Zhang, And Liu" (Document No. 53). This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, the undersigned will deny the motion. The undersigned apprecia..
More
ORDER
DAVID C. KEESLER, Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on "Plaintiff's Motion To Consolidate Its Responses In Opposition To The Motions To Dismiss/Transfer Venue Filed By Defendants Paul, Zhang, And Liu" (Document No. 53). This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, the undersigned will deny the motion.
The undersigned appreciates Plaintiff's desire to be efficient; however, the Court will respectfully deny Plaintiff's request. The undersigned observes that while Defendants have consented to a consolidated response, the parties have not been able to agree on an appropriate page limitation. (Document No. 53, p.3). Moreover, in most cases the undersigned finds that review of pending motions and briefs is easier when the briefing follows the typical pattern of motion-response-reply. The undersigned prefers that each motion, and subsequent briefing, stand on its own, without consolidation or incorporation related to other motions or briefs.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that "Plaintiff's Motion To Consolidate Its Responses In Opposition To The Motions To Dismiss/Transfer Venue Filed By Defendants Paul, Zhang, And Liu" (Document No. 53) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
