Muffrey LLC et al v. KMart Corporation

Filing 34

ORDER that 25 Motion to Conduct an Immediate Visual Site Inspection is DENIED as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/10/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 MUFFREY, LLC, et al., 7 Plaintiff(s), 8 vs. 9 KMART CORPORATION, et al., 10 Defendant(s). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:16-cv-01661-GMN-NJK ORDER (Docket No. 25) 11 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ emergency motion to conduct an immediate visual site 13 inspection of the property at the center of the instant case, filed on February 1, 2017. Docket No. 14 25. Defendant Kmart Corporation filed a response, and Plaintiffs filed a reply. Docket Nos. 31, 32. 15 Before Plaintiffs filed this motion, the parties scheduled an expert inspection of the property to occur 16 on February 13-14, 2017. See, e.g., Docket No. 25-1 at 4. However, Plaintiffs submit that they wish 17 to conduct an additional, earlier inspection of the property because of recent floods in the area that 18 may have damaged it. See, e.g., Docket No. 25 at 3-4. Plaintiffs fail to provide any support for the 19 extraordinary relief they request. See Docket No. 25. Further, in their reply, filed on February 8, 20 2017, Plaintiffs concede that “[e]mergency inspection is practically impossible.” Docket No. 32 at 21 3. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion, Docket No. 25, as moot. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 DATED: February 10, 2017 24 25 26 27 28 _____________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE 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?