Malloy et al v. SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc.

Filing 34

ORDER Overruling 26 Objection to 24 Order. Signed by Chief Judge Roger L. Hunt on 4/14/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 *** 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 In re-estate of EDGAR H. MALLOY, EDGAR W. MALLOY, as Sole Administrator of EDGAR H. MALLOY Estate; EDGAR W. MALLOY, as heir to the Estate of EDGAR H. MALLOY, ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) SPX COOLING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a ) business entity, ROE EMPLOYEE, ROE ) INDIVIDUALS I through X, and DOE ) CORPORATIONS and other business entities I ) through X, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) Case No.: 2:10-cv-00908-RLH-LRL ORDER (Motion for District Judge to Reconsider–#26) 20 21 Before the Court is an Order (#24) entered by the Honorable Lawrence R. Leavitt, 22 Magistrate Judge, regarding Defendant SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc.’s (“SPX”) Motion to 23 Strike (#17) and Plaintiff Edgar W. Malloy’s Motion to Extend Time (#18). 24 25 SPX filed Objections to Magistrate Judge Leavitt’s Order (#26) in accordance with Rule IB 3-1 of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of 26 AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) 1 1 Nevada. Malloy filed a Response (#28) to the Objections, and this matter was referred for 2 consideration. 3 The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record in accordance with 28 4 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C) and Local Rule IB 3-1 and determines that the Order (#24) is 5 not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and should be affirmed. 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Leavitt’s Order (#24) is 7 AFFIRMED, SPX’s Objections are overruled, SPX’s Motion Strike (#17) is DENIED, and 8 Malloy’s Motion to Extend (#18) is GRANTED.. 9 Dated: April 14, 2011. 10 11 ____________________________________ ROGER L. HUNT Chief United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) 2