Callender v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Filing 79

AMENDED ORDER Granting Defendant's 78 Motion for Clarification re 78 Minute Order. Defendant's 64 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Amended Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied. Defendant's 68 Motion to Strike is Denied. Defendant's 69 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's 1st Amended Response to 55 Motion forSummary Judgment is Granted.Defendant shall file its Reply to 61 Amended Response within 14 days of the date of this Or der. Defendant shall file its Response to Plaintiff's 62 1st Amended MOTION For Summary Judgment within 21 days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff shall file its Reply to Defendant's Response to 62 within 14 days of the date of the filing of Defendant's Response. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 5/25/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
4
ROBERT CALLENDER II,
5
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:14-CV-02199-KJD-PAL

6
v.
7
DELTA AIR LINES, INC.,

AMENDED ORDER

8
Defendant.
9
10
Before the Court for consideration is Defendant’s Motion for Clarification Regarding the
11
Court’s Minute Order of May 3, 2017 (#78).
12
The Court amends it’s Minute Order of May 3, 2017 (#77) as follows:
13
1.

Defendant’s operative Summary Judgment Motion is ECF No. 55;

2.

Plaintiff’s operative Response to Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion is ECF No.

14
15
61;
16
3.

Defendant shall file its Reply to ECF No. 61 fourteen (14) days from the date of this

17
Order;
18
4.

Defendant’s Motion to Strike ECF No. 61 (#64), is therefore denied as this Court

19
construes this document as Plaintiff’s operative Response to Defendant’s Motion for
20
Summary Judgment;
21
5.

Defendant’s Motion to Strike ECF No. 63, Plaintiff’s 1st Amended Response to

22
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#69) is granted;
23
6.

Plaintiff’s operative Summary Judgment Motion is ECF No. 62;

7.

The Court grants Defendant twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order to file its

24
25
Response to ECF No. 62;
26

1

8.

2
3

Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Response is due within fourteen (14) days of the
filing of Defendant’s Response; and

9.

Defendant’s Motion to Strike ECF No. 62 (#68), is denied.

4

The Court liberally construes pro se litigant filings, however, the Court reiterates its admonition that

5

no further amended filings are permitted by either party in this case.

6
7

Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

8

1.

9

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amended Response to Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment (#64) is denied;

10

2.

Defendant’s Motion to Strike ECF No. 62 (#68), is denied;

11

3.

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff's 1st Amended Response to #55 Motion for

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Summary Judgment (#69) is granted;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file its Reply to ECF No. 61 within (14)
days of the date of this Order;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file its Response to ECF No. 62 within
twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file its Reply to Defendant’s Response to
ECF No. 62 within fourteen (14) days of the date of the filing of Defendant’s Response.

19
20
21

25th
DATED this _____ day of May 2017.

22
23

___________________________________

24

Kent J. Dawson

25

United States District Judge

26
2