Centex Homes v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company et al
ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 47 the stipulation is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 43 Lexington's Motion to Dismiss and 44 Request for Judicial Notice are DENIED without prejudice to the refiling of a new motion to dismiss by 2/10/17. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 1/13/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
Case 2:16-cv-01958-JAD-VCF Document 47 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 3
ECF Nos. 43, 44, 47
Case 2:16-cv-01958-JAD-VCF Document 47 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 3
/s/ Sarah J. Odia
Case 2:16-cv-01958-JAD-VCF Document 47 Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 3
/s/ Joshua A. Zlotlow
Local Rule 7-1(c) states that “A stipulation that has been signed by fewer than all the parties or
their attorneys will be treated—and must be filed—as a joint motion.” This stipulation [ECF No.
47] is between the plaintiff and only one of the seven defendants in this case. Accordingly, I treat
it as a joint motion under LR 7-1(c).
However, I do not find good cause to accept the parties’ proposal because the supplemental
briefing plan is not judicially economical. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the stipulation
[ECF No. 47] is DENIED.
Instead, to streamline Lexington’s motion-to-dismiss process, and exercising my inherent power
to control the docket, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Lexington’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No.
43] and Request for Judicial Notice [ECF No. 44] are DENIED without prejudice to the refiling
of a new motion to dismiss by February 10, 2017. Lexington is advised that it should incorporate
any future request for judicial notice into its motion to dismiss.
United States District Court Judge
January 13, 2017
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?