Contreras v. Fox et al

Filing 80

ORDER that 65 and 66 Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 5/13/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8

MONICA CONTRERAS,

9

2:13-CV-591 JCM (PAL)

Plaintiff(s),

10
11

v.
RONALD D. FOX, et al.,

12
Defendant(s).

13
14

ORDER

15

Presently before the court is the matter of Contreras v. Fox, et al, case no. 2:13-cv-591-JCM-

16

PAL. Currently pending are two motions to dismiss filed by defendants (docs. # 65, 66) which have

17

been fully briefed and are ripe for review.

18

The parties have recently filed a joint motion to stay (doc. # 78) which indicates they have

19

reached a tentative global settlement. The parties represent that they are awaiting approval of the

20

settlement from the State Board of Examiners, and upon approval will file the necessary stipulation

21

and proposed order of dismissal. (Id.). The magistrate judge has given the parties until July 22,

22

2014, in which to file the stipulation and proposed order. (Doc. # 79).

23

In light of the tentative settlement, the court denies the pending motions to dismiss without

24

prejudice.

25

...

26

...

27

...

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that defendants’ motions to

3
4

dismiss (doc. # 65, 66) be, and the same hereby are, DENIED without prejudice.
DATED May 13, 2014.

5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-