Bank of America, N.A., v. Treo North and South Homeowners' Association, Inc. et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying ECF No. 16 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/10/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

10

Case No. 2:16-cv-00845-MMD-NJK
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
11
12

TREO NORTH AND SOUTH
HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

The Magistrate Judge properly denied Defendant’s motion to stay (ECF No. 14)

16

for failure to identify any legal authorities supporting its request to stay discovery. (ECF

17

No. 15.) Defendant tried to cure the deficiencies of its initial motion in seeking

18

reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s decision. However, Defendant fails to

19

demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge made a clear error in denying its legally deficient

20

motion to stay.1 Defendant’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 16) is therefore

21

denied.

22

DATED THIS 10th day of May 2016.

23
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

1

Magistrate judges are authorized to resolve pretrial matters subject to district
court review under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); L.R. IB 3-1(a) (“A district judge may
reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge in a civil or criminal case
pursuant to LR IB 1-3, where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s ruling is
clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”).