Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Las Vegas Development Group, LLC v. 2014-3 IH Equity Owner, LP, 2:15-cv-00917-GMN-NJK. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180228f68 Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . On November 15, 2015, the Court cautioned "all counsel that they must comply with applicable deadlines in the future." Docket No. 29. On July 27, 2016, the Court stayed this case pending resolution of a certified question and further ordered that "[w]ithin 14 days of the resolution of that certified question, the parties shall file a joint report as to whether discovery should proceed and, if so, a schedule for doing so." Docket No. 34. On February
More

ORDER

On November 15, 2015, the Court cautioned "all counsel that they must comply with applicable deadlines in the future." Docket No. 29. On July 27, 2016, the Court stayed this case pending resolution of a certified question and further ordered that "[w]ithin 14 days of the resolution of that certified question, the parties shall file a joint report as to whether discovery should proceed and, if so, a schedule for doing so." Docket No. 34. On February 17, 2017, the Court also ordered the parties to file status reports every 90 days. Docket No. 36.

Now pending before the Court is a stipulation to lift the stay. Docket No. 42. In reviewing the record, it is now clear that the parties violated the Court's order of July 27, 2016, because a joint report with a schedule to move this case forward was due five months ago on September 25, 2017. See id. at 2 (asserting that the Nevada Supreme Court declined to address the certified question in this case on September 11, 2017). Moreover, the parties failed to comply with the order requiring status reports every 90 days.

The Court hereby SETS a hearing for 1:00 p.m. on March 7, 2018, in Courtroom 3A. The Court will hear argument on the pending stipulation. In addition, counsel shall be prepared to explain why they violated the Court's orders as outlined above (after being admonished that strict compliance was required) and why the Court should not initiate sanctions proceedings.

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