McCart-Pollak v. Etkin et al
ORDER denying 50 Motion to Clarify.; denying 53 Motion for Hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 11/7/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
SHANA LEE MCCART-POLLAK,
Presently before the court is Plaintiff Shana Lee McCart-Pollack’s Request to Clarify Joint
Case No. 2:17-cv-00042-RFB-CWH
Pretrial Order Due Date (ECF No. 50), filed on October 13, 2017. Defendant Edward Etkin filed a
response (ECF No. 51) on October 17, 2017. The court entered an order (ECF No. 47) stating that
the joint pretrial order is due on November 24, 2017, or thirty days after the court’s order deciding
the last pending dispositive motion. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for clarification is moot.
Also before the court is Plaintiff’s request for a hearing (ECF No. 53), filed on October 20,
2017. Defendant did not file a response. Plaintiff requests that the court set a hearing on her motion
to compel (ECF No. 32) and her motion for sanctions (ECF No. 41). A hearing on those motions,
and various other pending motions, is set for December 8, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3C.
(Min. Order (ECF No. 58).) Thus, Plaintiff’s request for a hearing is moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Shana Lee McCart-Pollack’s Request to
Clarify Joint Pretrial Order Due Date (ECF No. 50) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for a hearing (ECF No. 53) is DENIED
DATED: November 7, 2017
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
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?