Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

JONES v. SKOLNIK, 3:10-CV-00162-LRH-VPC. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20151123a65 Visitors: 3
Filed: Nov. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 20, 2015
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS , District Judge . Before the court is Plaintiff Christopher A. Jones' ("Jones") Motion for an Order Directing Defendants' James G. Cox and Brian Williams to Answer Plaintiff's Complaint. Doc. #453. 1 Defendants filed a response (Doc. #457), to which Jones did not reply. I. Background On July 22, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for order directing an answer and directed Defendants Skolnik, Cox, and Williams to answer Jones' first amended complaint within 2
More

ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff Christopher A. Jones' ("Jones") Motion for an Order Directing Defendants' James G. Cox and Brian Williams to Answer Plaintiff's Complaint. Doc. #453.1 Defendants filed a response (Doc. #457), to which Jones did not reply.

I. Background

On July 22, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for order directing an answer and directed Defendants Skolnik, Cox, and Williams to answer Jones' first amended complaint within 21 days. Doc. #445. On September 18, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order staying district court proceedings with respect to Howard Skolnik pending disposition of appeal and denying a motion to stay as to defendants Williams and Cox. Doc. #452. On October 2, 2015, Jones filed the present motion for order directing Defendants Williams and Cox to remit an immediate answer. Doc. #453. On October 5, 2015, Cox and Williams filed an answer to the amended complaint. Doc. #454. On October 9, 2015, Jones filed conditional notice of withdrawal. Doc. #455. On October 22, 2015, Defendants Cox and Williams filed a notice of change of attorney (Doc. #456) and a response to Jones' motion (Doc. #457).

II. Discussion

In his conditional notice of withdrawal, Jones stated that his motion for an immediate answer would be "deemed withdrawn immediately once all formal notices [regarding who was the lead counsel of record] are filed with this court. Doc. #455. On October 22, 2015, Defendants filed their notice of change of lead counsel with respect to Cox and Williams. Because Jones' stated condition for the withdrawal of his motion has been met, his motion is denied as moot.

III. Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Directing Defendants to Answer (Doc. 453) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Refers to the Court's docket number.
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