Bank of America, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, et al

Filing 109

ORDER that 105 Proposed Pretrial Order and 106 Pretrial Order are STRICKEN. The parties shall file on or before Friday, July 21, 2017 a proposed joint pretrial order, which includes all of the parties and claims and complies with the applicable local and federal rules, including LR 16-3 and LR 16-4. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/11/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:15-CV-1768 JCM (CWH)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al.,
Defendant(s).

12
13
14
15
16

Presently before the court is the matter of Bank of America, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool
1, LLC, et al., case number 2:15-cv-01768-JCM-CWH.
On June 5, 2017, the court granted the parties motion to extend time (ECF No. 98) and
extended the proposed joint pretrial order deadline to June 30, 2017. (ECF No. 99).

17

On June 30, 2017, third-party plaintiff Thomas Jessup LLC (“Jessup”) and third-party

18

defendant Daushari Wong-Culotta (“Wong”) submitted a proposed pretrial order (ECF No. 105),

19

which did not include all of the parties in this action—i.e., Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”),

20

SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”), and Davyn Ridge Homeowners Association (the “HOA”).

21

While BANA and Jessup have stipulated to the dismissal of BANA’s claims against Jessup (ECF

22

Nos. 101, 108), such stipulation does not resolve BANA’s claims against SFR and the HOA or

23

SFR’s counterclaim against BANA. Therefore, the parties have failed to timely comply with the

24

court’s order or request an extension as to the joint pretrial order deadline.

25

In light of the foregoing, the court hereby strikes Jessup’s and Wong’s proposed pretrial

26

order (ECF No. 105), as well as the pretrial order (ECF No. 106), as the pretrial order did not

27

comply with the applicable local and federal rules—specifically, the pretrial order did not include

28

all of the parties to the present action. See, e.g., Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that district courts have inherent power to control their own

2

dockets); see also LR IC 7-1 (“The court may strike documents that do not comply with these

3

rules.”). The parties shall file—on or before Friday, July 21, 2017—a proposed joint pretrial

4

order, which includes all of the parties and claims and complies with the applicable local and

5

federal rules, including LR 16-3 and LR 16-4. Failure to timely comply may result in appropriate

6

sanctions.

7

Accordingly,

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED July 11, 2017.

10
11

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-