Vigil v. HUD Washingon D.C. et al
ORDER Granting 26 Motion to Strike. Pages two through seven of Plaintiff's demand for jury trial 25 shall be disregarded for all purposes in this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 2/8/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
HUD WASH D.C., SNRHA, et al,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01738-APG-CWH
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to strike (ECF No. 26), filed on November
28, 2016. Pro se Plaintiff Michael Virgil filed a response (ECF No. 27) on December 9, 2016, and
Defendants filed a reply (ECF No. 30), filed on December 16, 2016.
Defendants request that the Court strike portions of Plaintiff’s demand for trial by jury (ECF
No. 25) that they argue contain extraneous allegations. Upon review, ECF No. 25 contains a demand
for trial by jury as well as allegations against Defendants, and proffers of Plaintiff’s trustworthiness.
The Court construes ECF No. 25 as a combined demand for trial by jury and motion to supplement
to the pleadings.
Under Local Rule 7-2(g), a party may not file supplemental pleadings, briefs, authorities, or
evidence without leave of the Court granted for good cause. Plaintiff has not requested leave to file
the supplementary material, and the Court does not find good cause to do so.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to strike (ECF No. 26) is
GRANTED. Pages two through seven of Plaintiff’s demand for jury trial (ECF No. 25) shall be
disregarded for all purposes in this case.
DATED: February 8, 2017.
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?