Bell v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 28

ORDER that 27 Motion to Extend Time to Answer/Respond re 12 Complaint is GRANTED in part. R. Aranas answer due 10/14/2014; Bruce R Bannister answer due 10/14/2014; Chang answer due 10/14/2014; Holmes answer due 10/14/2014; C. Sablica answer due 10/14/2014.; R. Aranas answer due 10/14/2014; Bruce R Bannister answer due 10/14/2014; Chang answer due 10/14/2014; Holmes answer due 10/14/2014; C. Sablica answer due 10/14/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/7/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
ROY BELL,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
THE STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-00476-RFB-NJK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
MOTION TO EXTEND
(Docket No. 27)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to extend the deadline to respond to the

17

complaint. Docket No. 27. Defendants acknowledge the Court’s clear order that the response to the

18

complaint was due no later than October 6, 2014 for any Defendants on whose behalf the Attorney

19

General accepted service. See id. at 2; see also Docket No. 17 at 2. Nonetheless, Defendants argue that

20

there was a docketing error in that a later date was automatically generated by CM/ECF. See Docket

21

No. 27 at 2. Defendants’ motion seeks an extension to the later, CM/ECF-generated deadline. See id.

22

It is well settled that an automatically-generated CM/ECF notice does not constitute an order of

23

the Court. See, e.g., Carrillo v. B&J Andrews Enters., LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist Lexis. 22010, *2 (D. Nev.

24

Feb. 19, 2013). When such a notice conflicts with a Court order, parties are required to comply with the

25

Court order. Id. Accordingly, there should have been no confusion that Defendants’ deadline to respond

26

to the complaint remained October 6, 2014.

27

//

28

//

1
2

The Court expects Defendants’ counsel to strictly comply with all Court orders. Nonetheless,
in this one instance, the Court will grant in part the motion for an extension to October 14, 2014.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

DATED: October 7, 2014

5
6

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2