Pulsipher v. Clark County et al

Filing 145

ORDER Granting 144 Motion for Clarification. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/6/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DXS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
ALAN PULSIPHER,
9
Plaintiff,
10
vs.
11
CLARK COUNTY et al.,
12
Defendants.
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:08-cv-01374-RCJ-LRL
ORDER

14

This case arises out of alleged race-, religion-, and gender-based employment

15

discrimination. A jury returned a verdict for Defendants. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, and

16

Defendants moved to amend the judgment and for attorney’s fees and costs. The Court denied

17

the motions, except that it amended the judgment to permit costs to Defendants. Because the

18

Court did not address the question in the order denying a new trial, Defendants have now moved

19

for the Court to clarify whether Plaintiff’s motion was timely. It was not. A motion for new trial

20

must be made within twenty-eight (28) days after judgment. The Court entered judgment on

21

February 25, 2011, and the twenty-eighth day thereafter was Friday, March 25, 2011. March 25,

22

2011 was not a holiday. Plaintiff filed his motion for a new trial on Monday, March 28, 2011.

23

The motion was therefore untimely.

24

///

25

///

1
2
3

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 144) is
GRANTED.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated this 6th day of June, 2011.

6
7

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2