Vigil v. HUD Washingon D.C. et al

Filing 31

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)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MICHAEL VIGIL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) HUD WASH D.C., SNRHA, et al, ) ) Defendants. ) ) _______________________________________ ) Case No. 2:15-cv-01738-APG-CWH ORDER Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to strike (ECF No. 26), filed on November 11 28, 2016. Pro se Plaintiff Michael Virgil filed a response (ECF No. 27) on December 9, 2016, and 12 Defendants filed a reply (ECF No. 30), filed on December 16, 2016. 13 Defendants request that the Court strike portions of Plaintiff’s demand for trial by jury (ECF 14 No. 25) that they argue contain extraneous allegations. Upon review, ECF No. 25 contains a demand 15 for trial by jury as well as allegations against Defendants, and proffers of Plaintiff’s trustworthiness. 16 The Court construes ECF No. 25 as a combined demand for trial by jury and motion to supplement 17 to the pleadings. 18 Under Local Rule 7-2(g), a party may not file supplemental pleadings, briefs, authorities, or 19 evidence without leave of the Court granted for good cause. Plaintiff has not requested leave to file 20 the supplementary material, and the Court does not find good cause to do so. 21 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to strike (ECF No. 26) is 22 GRANTED. Pages two through seven of Plaintiff’s demand for jury trial (ECF No. 25) shall be 23 disregarded for all purposes in this case. 24 DATED: February 8, 2017. 25 26 _________________________________ C.W. Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge 27 28 1

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?