CALOVE v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, 2:14-cv-01329-JAD-NJK. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20150303b62
Visitors: 1
Filed: Mar. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2015
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's untimely opposition to its motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 34. The opposition brief was filed after the Court had already granted the motion to stay discovery. See Docket No. 33 (filed February 18, 2015); see also Docket No. 32 (order granting motion to stay discovery, filed on January 28, 2015). In the opposition brief, Plaintiff asserts that she did not receive the motio
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's untimely opposition to its motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 34. The opposition brief was filed after the Court had already granted the motion to stay discovery. See Docket No. 33 (filed February 18, 2015); see also Docket No. 32 (order granting motion to stay discovery, filed on January 28, 2015). In the opposition brief, Plaintiff asserts that she did not receive the motion..
More
ORDER
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's untimely opposition to its motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 34. The opposition brief was filed after the Court had already granted the motion to stay discovery. See Docket No. 33 (filed February 18, 2015); see also Docket No. 32 (order granting motion to stay discovery, filed on January 28, 2015). In the opposition brief, Plaintiff asserts that she did not receive the motion. See Docket No. 33 at 2. The Court must construe pro se filings broadly. E.g., Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013). In light of the circumstances, the Court construes the belated opposition as a motion for reconsideration.
The Court has reviewed the motion for reconsideration and, even reconsidering its prior order de novo, finds that Plaintiff's position lacks merit. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 33) is hereby DENIED and Defendant's motion to strike (Docket No. 34) is hereby DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
