Thompson et al v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 284

ORDER. Presently before the court is counterclaimant American Family Mutual Insurance Companys letter for status request. Local Rule 7-6(b) allows a party to contact the presiding judge when a motion is pending for over 60 days. The underlying moti on for reconsideration of the magistrate judges order denying sanctions was filed on September 16, 2011. After the response period lapsed, the undersigned reviewed the motion and determined that it was more properly addressed to the magistrate judge in the first instance. For example, the argument section of the motion is titled, Reconsideration by the Magistrate Judge or the District Court is Proper. Mot. at 6:1 (emphasis added). Further, the motion is premised on the argument that it appears b ut for Judge Johnstons belief that the motion for summary judgment was dispositive of all of American Familys claims, sanctions would have issued. Id. at 3:24-25 (emphasis added). Such issues, appear to this court, better directed at the magistrate judge in the first instance. Accordingly, on November 16, 2011, the motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Johnston and remains pending before him. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/12/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

HERNI THOMPSON, et al.,

9
10
11
12
13

2:09-CV-905 JCM (RJJ)

Plaintiffs,
v.
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

ORDER

16

Presently before the court is counterclaimant American Family Mutual Insurance Company’s

17

letter for status request. Local Rule 7-6(b) allows a party to contact the presiding judge when a

18

motion is pending for over 60 days.

19

The underlying motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order denying sanctions

20

was filed on September 16, 2011. After the response period lapsed, the undersigned reviewed the

21

motion and determined that it was more properly addressed to the magistrate judge in the first

22

instance. For example, the argument section of the motion is titled, “Reconsideration by the

23

Magistrate Judge or the District Court is Proper.” Mot. at 6:1 (emphasis added). Further, the

24

motion is premised on the argument that “it appears but for Judge Johnston’s belief that the motion

25

for summary judgment was dispositive of all of American Family’s claims, sanctions would have

26

issued.” Id. at 3:24-25 (emphasis added). Such issues, appear to this court, better directed at the

27

magistrate judge in the first instance.

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1
2
3

Accordingly, on November 16, 2011, the motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Johnston
and remains pending before him.
DATED June 12, 2012.

4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-