McCarty v. Roos et al

Filing 207

ORDER Denying 196 Motion for an Order Requiring Joint Submissions from Defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/25/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6
ROBERT JOSEPH MCCARTY,

11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

12

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking an order requiring joint court filings

7
Plaintiff(s),
8
vs.
9
JOHN V. ROOS, et al.,
10
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:11-cv-01538-JCM-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING
JOINT SUBMISSIONS FROM
DEFENDANTS
(Docket No. 196)

13

from Defendants. See Docket No. 196. The State Defendants filed a response. Docket No. 201.1

14

Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket No. 205. The Court finds this motion properly resolved without oral

15

argument. See Local Rule 78-2. Where multiple defendants have been named in a lawsuit, each

16

defendant may generally submit independent court filings. See, e.g., Salameh v. Tarsadia Hotels,

17

2010 WL 2839013, *3 n.1 (S.D. Cal. July 20, 2010) (noting that even though arguments overlapped,

18

each defendant filed separate motions to dismiss); Kriston v. Peroulis, 2010 WL 1610419, *5 (D.

19

Nev. Apr. 16, 2010) (same). Plaintiff has not shown that it is appropriate to require all defendants in

20

this action to make their court filings jointly. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring

21

joint submissions from defendants is hereby DENIED.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

DATED: September 25, 2013

24
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28

1

The Federal Defendants requested a stay of the deadline to respond. Docket No. 200. In light
of the Court’s ruling herein, that request is DENIED as moot.