Guerrero v. Wharton
Filing
38
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 17 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/13/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
KELLY GUERRERO,
4
Plaintiff,
5
vs.
6
VINCENT NEIL WHARTON,
7
Defendant.
8
9
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 2:16-cv-01667-GMN-NJK
ORDER
10
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 17), filed by Defendant
11
12
Vincent Neil Wharton (“Defendant”). For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES as
13
moot Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
14
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Kelly Guerrero (“Plaintiff”) originally filed this lawsuit on July 14, 2016.
15
16
(Compl., ECF No. 1). On October 25, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
17
third cause of action for attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff did not file a response, and the
18
deadline to do so has passed. Instead, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 18),
19
removing as a cause of action the claim for attorney’s fees.
20
21
II.
DISCUSSION
Local Rule 7-2(d) provides that “[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and
22
authorities in response to any motion, except a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or a motion for
23
attorney’s fees, constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.” D. Nev. R. 7-2(d).
24
Although Plaintiff failed to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff filed her Amended
25
Complaint and removed the cause of action that Defendant sought to dismiss. As such,
Page 1 of 2
1
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint consents to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, thereby rendering
2
the Motion moot.
3
III.
4
5
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 17), is
DENIED as moot.
6
7
13
DATED this _____ day of April, 2017.
8
9
10
___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 2 of 2
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?