Hulihan v. Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada et al

Filing 117

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr, on 10/19/2011. Prior to this Courts order 116 denying Plaintiffs motion 101 to amend summary judgment, Plaintiff filed a motion 110 for clarification on August 29, 2011. In her motion 110 for clarification, Plaintiff briefly references the arguments that Plaintiff presented in full in her motion 101 to amend summary judgment. The Court therefore finds that the issues presented in Plaintiffs motion 110 for clarification have been resolved by the Courts October 6, 2011 order 116 denying Plaintiffs motion 101 to amend summary judgment. Plaintiffs motion 110 for clarification is denied as moot. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA SHARON HULIHAN, Plaintiff, vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA, a Public Entity under State and Federal Statutes; LAIDLAW TRANSIT SERVICES, INC., a Foreign Corporation; and FIRST TRANSIT, INC., a Foreign Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. PRESENT: Deputy Clerk: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:09-cv-01096-ECR-RJJ MINUTES OF THE COURT DATE: October 19, 2011 EDWARD C. REED, JR. COLLEEN LARSEN U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE Reporter: Counsel for Plaintiff(s) NONE APPEARING Counsel for Defendant(s) NONE APPEARING NONE APPEARING MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS Prior to this Court’s order (#116) denying Plaintiff’s motion (#101) to amend summary judgment, Plaintiff filed a motion (#110) for clarification on August 29, 2011. In her motion (#110) for clarification, Plaintiff briefly references the arguments that Plaintiff presented in full in her motion (#101) to amend summary judgment. The Court therefore finds that the issues presented have been resolved by the Plaintiff’s motion (#101) Plaintiff’s motion (#110) in Plaintiff’s motion (#110) for clarification Court’s October 6, 2011 order (#116) denying to amend summary judgment. Therefore, for clarification will be denied as moot. IT IS, THEREFORE, HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (#110) for clarification is DENIED as moot. LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK By 2 /s/ Deputy Clerk

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?