Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

KENNEDY v. R.M.L.V., LLC, 2:12-CV-1134-GMN-GWF. (2014)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20140128a21 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 27, 2014
Latest Update: Jan. 27, 2014
Summary: JOINT MOTION TO VACATE COURT'S JANUARY 14, 2014 MINUTE ENTRY ORDER (ECF No. 32) GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate Judge. On January 14, 2014, Magistrate Judge Foley held a telephonic status conference to discuss enforcement of the parties' Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement") as to Christopher del Pozo ("del Pozo"). See Minutes of Proceedings (the "Order" (ECF No. 22)). As of the date of that status conference, del Pozo had given consent to his counsel to enter into the proposed settlement bu
More

JOINT MOTION TO VACATE COURT'S JANUARY 14, 2014 MINUTE ENTRY ORDER (ECF No. 32)

GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate Judge.

On January 14, 2014, Magistrate Judge Foley held a telephonic status conference to discuss enforcement of the parties' Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement") as to Christopher del Pozo ("del Pozo"). See Minutes of Proceedings (the "Order" (ECF No. 22)). As of the date of that status conference, del Pozo had given consent to his counsel to enter into the proposed settlement but subsequently refused to sign the Agreement.

Following the status conference, the Court ordered Defendant RMLV, LLC ("RMLV") to file a motion requesting enforcement of the settlement agreement. Id. The Court further ordered Plaintiffs' counsel to forward the motion to del Pozo, who would be required to file a response. Id. Additionally, the Court stated that a hearing on RMLV's motion would be set and that del Pozo would be required to appear personally at that hearing. Id.

Subsequently, del Pozo executed the Settlement Agreement. On January 22, 2014, Plaintiffs' counsel forwarded a copy of del Pozo's signature page to RMLV's counsel. In view of these circumstances, RMLV's proposed motion to enforce the settlement as to del Pozo and the related hearing are moot. For these reasons, the parties jointly request that the Court vacate its Order. With a completely executed Agreement in hand, the parties will proceed promptly with a joint motion requesting that the Court approve their settlement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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