Federal Trade Commission v. AMG Services, Inc. et al

Filing 955

ORDER ORDERED that plaintiff may file on or before March 30, 2016, a sur-reply in opposition to the Motion to Stay which addresses only those arguments in the Tucker Defendants' reply based on the letter to Judge Hall. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 3/22/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5
6
7

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AMG SERVICES, INC., et al.,

8

2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
A SUR-REPLY

Defendants.
9
10

Before the court is Tucker Defendants’ Motion to Stay (#932). Plaintiff filed an opposition

11

(#946) and the Tucker Defendants filed a reply (#947). In their reply, the Tucker Defendants raise for

12

the first time an argument based on a March 8, 2016 Letter from the United States Attorney, Southern

13

District of New York to the Hon. James A Hall (ret.), Exhibit A to the reply (#947-1, pp. 8 – 9.).

14

In section II. A. of their reply, the Tucker Defendants argue that this letter supports granting a

15

stay in this action. Since the letter was not written until after the Motion to Stay (#932) was filed, the

16

Tucker Defendants could not have raised an argument based on the letter in their original motion. The

17
18

court will consider this new argument raised for the first time in the Tucker Defendants’ reply.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff may file on or before March 30, 2016, a

19

sur-reply in opposition to the Motion to Stay which addresses only those arguments in the Tucker
20

Defendants’ reply based on the letter to Judge Hall.
21
22

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2016.

23
24
25

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE