Randazza et al v. Cox et al

Filing 149

ORDER Denying as Moot 26 Defendant's Motion to Extend Time to File Exhibits in Complaint Answer and Counter Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 42 Defendant's Motion to Allow Exhibits Attached to Complaint Answer is Denied as Moot. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 7/12/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

MARC J. RANDAZZA, an individual,
JENNIFER RANDAZZA, an individual, and
NATALIA RANDAZZA, a minor,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
CRYSTAL L. COX, an individual, and ELIOT )
BERNSTEIN, an individual,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No.: 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL
ORDER

12

This case involves allegations of trademark infringement and cybersquatting resulting

13
14

from the registration of certain domain names by Defendant Crystal Cox and Defendant Eliot

15

Bernstein. Pending before the Court is the Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 26) and the

16

Motion to Allow Exhibits Attached to the Complaint/Answer (ECF No. 42), both of which

17

were filed by pro se Defendant Crystal Cox (“Defendant”).

18
19

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE EXHIBITS IN
COMPLAINT ANSWER AND COUNTER COMPLAINT (ECF No. 26)

20

In her motion, Defendant states that she “is mailing her Answer to the Complaint,

I.

21

Counter Claim, Motion to Recuse, Motion to Investigate, Motion Requesting Preservation of

22

Evidence . . . and requests an extension due to holidays and mail issues for adding Exhibits to

23

this Case Electronically.” (Mot. 1, ECF No. 26.)

24
25

This request relates to the timeliness of filing her original Answer, (see ECF No. 23),
and is MOOT because Defendant’s original Answer is no longer the governing answer in this
case. Specifically, in the Court’s February 22, 2013 Order, the Court permitted Defendant to
Page 1 of 2

1

file an Amended Answer. (See ECF No. 89.) In response, Defendant filed her Amended

2

Answer on February 23, 2013. (ECF No. 90.) Accordingly, Defendant’s request to extend time

3

attach exhibits to her original Answer is MOOT.

4

II.

5

In her motion, Defendant requests that the Court “accept Exhibits to Defendant Crystal

6
7
8
9

Cox’s Complaint answer (Document 23), as Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox does not have the
money to print and mail the large amount of exhibits named in the complaint answer regarding
Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL.” (Mot. 1, ECF No. 43.)
This request also relates to Defendant’s original Answer. (See ECF No. 23.) However,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ALLOW EXHIBITS ATTACHED TO
COMPLAINT ANSWER (ECF No. 42)

as discussed above, Defendant’s original Answer is no longer the governing answer in this
case. Specifically, in the Court’s February 22, 2013 Order, the Court permitted Defendant to
file an Amended Answer. (See ECF No. 89.) In response, Defendant filed her Amended
Answer on February 23, 2013. (ECF No. 90.) Accordingly, Defendant’s request to attach
exhibits to her original Answer is MOOT.
III.

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Extend Time to File Exhibits

in Complaint Answer and Counter Complaint (ECF No. 26) is DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Allow Exhibits Attached to
Complaint Answer (ECF No. 42) is DENIED as MOOT.
DATED this 12th day of July, 2013.

22
23
24

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

25

Page 2 of 2