BoomJ.com et al v. Pursglove

Filing 96

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 84 Motion to Discharge. Defendants Opposition 95 references a Motion for Judgment Against Garnishee for Failure to Answer Interrogatories supposedly filed by Hutchinson & Steffen, LLC on July 15, 2010. However an examination of the Courts docket reveals that no motion was filed on July 15, 2010 and that a Motion for Judgment has not been filed at all. Accordingly, to the extent the parties believe such a motion is pending before the Court, it is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 9/28/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

BoomJ.com et al v. Pursglove

Doc. 96

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Discharge Writ of Garnishment (#84). Though the time for doing so has passed, no response in opposition has been filed. Also before the Court is Defendant's Opposition (#95) to Motion for Judgment Against Garnishee for Failure to Answer Interrogatories. Having read and considered Defendant's Motion to Discharge, the Court must deny it without prejudice. Local Rule ("LR") 5-1, Proof of Service, requires all papers required or permitted to be served to attach, when filed, written proof of service. Here, no such proof of service has been attached. Though LR 5-4 allows electronic service of documents, Defendant is still required to attach proof of electronic service. The Notice of Electronic Filing associated with Defendant's Motion (#84) demonstrates that the party-in-interest, Hutchinson & Steffen, LLC, was not served by v. GEORGE PURSGLOVE, Defendant. BOOMJ.COM, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:08-CV-00496-KJD-RJJ ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

the Court electronically or by mail. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Discharge is DENIED without prejudice in accordance with LR 5-1. Defendant's Opposition (#95) references a Motion for Judgment Against Garnishee for Failure to Answer Interrogatories supposedly filed by Hutchinson & Steffen, LLC on July 15, 2010. However an examination of the Court's docket reveals that no motion was filed on July 15, 2010 and that a Motion for Judgment has not been filed at all. Accordingly, to the extent the parties believe such a motion is pending before the Court, it is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 28th day of September 2010.

_____________________________ Kent J. Dawson United States District Judge

2