Rugged Oaks Investment v. Nelson, 2:15-cv-00240-APG-CWH. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160317837
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 08, 2016
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . Plaintiff Rugged Oaks Investment moves for leave to supplement its prior summary judgment motion. (Dkt. #45.) However, I recently denied Rugged Oaks' prior motion. (Dkt. #48.) The parties therefore should treat Rugged Oaks' motion to supplement as a renewed motion for summary judgment, which includes the arguments made in the motion to supplement as well as those made in the original motion (Dkt. #24), and brief it acc
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . Plaintiff Rugged Oaks Investment moves for leave to supplement its prior summary judgment motion. (Dkt. #45.) However, I recently denied Rugged Oaks' prior motion. (Dkt. #48.) The parties therefore should treat Rugged Oaks' motion to supplement as a renewed motion for summary judgment, which includes the arguments made in the motion to supplement as well as those made in the original motion (Dkt. #24), and brief it acco..
More
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT
ANDREW P. GORDON, District Judge.
Plaintiff Rugged Oaks Investment moves for leave to supplement its prior summary judgment motion. (Dkt. #45.) However, I recently denied Rugged Oaks' prior motion. (Dkt. #48.) The parties therefore should treat Rugged Oaks' motion to supplement as a renewed motion for summary judgment, which includes the arguments made in the motion to supplement as well as those made in the original motion (Dkt. #24), and brief it accordingly. The opposition is due 14 days from the date of this Order. The reply is due seven days thereafter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
