Fetrow-Fix et al v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.

Filing 120

ORDER that Magistrate Judge Leens Order 112 is AFFIRMED, Plaintiffs Objections are overruled, and Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration 114 is DENIED. Defendants Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Reply 118 is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 5/9/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

***

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

CHARI FETROW-FIX and THOMAS
SORANNO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HARRAH’S ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a
)
Delaware Corporation; HARRAH’S
)
OPERATING COMPANY, INC.; HARRAH’S )
LAUGHLIN, INC.; and DOES No. 1 through )
100, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

Case No.: 2:10-cv-00560-RLH-PAL
ORDER
(Motion for Reconsideration–#114)

19
20

Before the Court is an Order (#112) entered by the Honorable Peggy A. Leen,

21

Magistrate Judge, regarding Plaintiffs’ Chari Fetrow-Fix and Thomas Soranno’s Motion for

22

Conditional Certification of Collective Action (#80).

23

Plaintiff Thomas Soranno filed Objections to Magistrate Judge Leen’s Order (#114)

24

in accordance with Rule IB 3-1 of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court

25

for the District of Nevada. Defendants Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., Harrah’s Operating

26

Company, Inc., and Harrah’s Laughlin, Inc., filed a Response (#115) to the Objections, and this

AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

1

1

matter was referred for consideration. Plaintiff filed a Reply (#116) to Defendants’ Response, but

2

because the rules of civil procedure to not allow for a reply in support of objections to a magistrate

3

judge’s order, the Court will not consider it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; LR IB 3-1, 3-2.

4

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record in accordance with 28

5

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C) and Local Rule IB 3-1 and determines that the Order (#112) is

6

not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and should be affirmed.

7

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Leen’s Order (#112) is

8

AFFIRMED, Plaintiff’s Objections are overruled, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

9

(#114) is DENIED.

10
11
12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Reply
(#118) is GRANTED.
Dated: May 9, 2012

13
14

____________________________________
ROGER L. HUNT
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

2