Wu v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc.

Filing 9

ORDER Denying as moot 6 Motion to Extend Time to File a Motion in Reply Opposition to Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall strike Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Motion to Amen d/Correct Complaint 7 and Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to Submit Reply to Defendant's Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 8 from the record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 3/30/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12

YAT MING WU,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00278-JCM-CWH
ORDER

13
14
15
16

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to File a Motion in Reply
Opposition to Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. #6), filed on March 27, 2012.
It is not apparent what request Plaintiff refers to, as Defendants have yet to make an appearance

17

in this case. Plaintiff does not assert how much time is requested. Regardless, Defendants have not

18

filed a Request for Judicial Notice in this matter. Thus, there is no need for Plaintiff to submit a filing

19

that opposes such a request. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied as moot.

20

Plaintiff has further submitted two other filings that are premature at this juncture. On March

21

27, 2012 Plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint

22

(Dkt. # 7) and a Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to Submit Reply to Defendant’s Reply in

23

Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #8). Not only has there been no filing by Defendants

24

in this case, Plaintiff has not filed a Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. Since Plaintiff’s replies do

25

not relate to any filing in this action, these documents will be stricken from the record.

26

Accordingly,

27

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to File a Motion in Reply

28

Opposition to Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. #6) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall strike Plaintiff’s Reply to

1

Defendant’s Opposition to Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint (Dkt. # 7) and Plaintiff’s Reply in

2

Support of Motion for Leave to Submit Reply to Defendant’s Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion

3

to Dismiss (Dkt. #8) from the record.

4

DATED this 30th day of March, 2012.

5
6
7

C.W. HOFFMAN, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2