Harfouche v. Stars on Tour, Inc. et al

Filing 118

ORDER re 117 Ex Parte Motion filed by Elie Harfouche. A document requesting a Court order, however, must be styled as a motion, not a letter. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 7. Letters to a judge will be disregarded. Further, the Court expects the parties to comply with all Federal and Local Rules regarding the filing of motions. See, e.g., Local Rule 7-2. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiffs letter requests any sort of relief, it is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 1/5/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
***
7

ELIE HARFOUCHE,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,
vs.
STARS ON TOUR, INC., et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:13-cv-00615-LDG-NJK

ORDER
(Docket No. 117)

12
13

Pending before the Court is a letter that Plaintiff filed on the docket as an ex parte motion,

14

despite the fact that Plaintiff states in the letter that it will be served on all parties via CM/ECF.

15

Docket No. 117. This document contains numerous deficiencies.

16

As an initial matter, the Court addresses the term “ex parte.” The parties in this case have

17

filed numerous documents, that they have served on each other, on the docket as ex parte documents.

18

See, e.g., Docket Nos. 78, 109, 110, 114. As United States District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey has

19

succinctly surmised, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

20

United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Assurance Co. of Am. & Maryland Casualty Co., 2014 WL 4960915, *1 (D.

21

Nev. June 4, 2014) (quoting Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride (Act III Communications

22

1987)). An ex parte document is a document “that is filed with the Court, but is not served upon the

23

opposing or other parties.” Local Rule 7-5(a). Further, “all ex parte motions, applications or

24

requests shall contain a statement of good cause why the matter was submitted to the Court without

25

notice to all parties.” Local Rule 7-5(b). Finally, “motions, applications or requests may be

26

submitted ex parte only for compelling reasons...” Local Rule 7-5(c). The Court has previously

27

denied a motion due to its improper ex parte filing, see Docket No. 79, and expects the parties to

28

comply with all applicable rules regarding practice in this District.

1

Additionally, the document currently before the Court is a letter requesting a continuance to

2

respond to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Docket No. 117. A document requesting

3

a Court order, however, must be styled as a motion, not a letter. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 7. Letters to a

4

judge will be disregarded. Further, the Court expects the parties to comply with all Federal and

5

Local Rules regarding the filing of motions. See, e.g., Local Rule 7-2. Therefore, to the extent

6

Plaintiff’s letter requests any sort of relief, it is DENIED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: January 5, 2016.

9
10
11

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-