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)

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