Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

HATLEN v. COX, 3:12-cv-00534-MMD-WGC. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20150921b89 Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 18, 2015
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . This Order addresses a number of pending motions before this Court. Plaintiff filed two motions for hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. nos. 462, 474.) Plaintiff also filed a motion for a status check, requesting the status of his request for a hearing. (Dkt. no. 481.) The Court has set oral argument for September 29, 2015. Plaintiff's motions (dkt. nos. 462, 474, 481) are denied as moot. Plaintiff filed two objections to the Ma
More

ORDER

This Order addresses a number of pending motions before this Court.

Plaintiff filed two motions for hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. nos. 462, 474.) Plaintiff also filed a motion for a status check, requesting the status of his request for a hearing. (Dkt. no. 481.) The Court has set oral argument for September 29, 2015. Plaintiff's motions (dkt. nos. 462, 474, 481) are denied as moot.

Plaintiff filed two objections to the Magistrate Judge's orders denying two of his motions as moot. (Dkt. nos. 481, 482.) The basis of his objections is that he does not understand the nature of the documents referenced in the Magistrate Judge's orders docketed as nos. 478 and 480. On June 3, 2015, a minute order was docketed setting a settlement conference for July 21, 2015. (Dkt. no. 476.) However, that order was docketed in error; it should have been docketed in another case. The Court issued a minute order the next day, on June 4, 2015, to correct the error. On June 18, 2015 and June 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed two essentially identical motions to the Court stating his position with respect to settlement. (Dkt. nos. 477, 479.) Because the Court did not order settlement in this case and because the error relating to the minute order setting a settlement conference was corrected, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's motions as moot. Plaintiff's objections (dkt. nos. 481, 482) are overruled.

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