Gryglak v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al

Filing 62

ORDER Denying 61 Second Stipulation for Extension of Time Re: 45 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants' Replies due by 1/4/2019. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/21/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 EDYTA GRYGLAK, 8 9 10 Case No. 2:17-CV-1514 JCM (NJK) Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 13 14 Presently before the court is the matter of Gryglak v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al, case no. 2:17-cv-01514-JCM-NJK. 15 On December 20, 2018, the parties filed a “stipulation and order to extend deadline for 16 defendants to respond to plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment and 17 countermotion for summary judgment.” (ECF No. 61). For the following reasons, the stipulation 18 is denied. 19 On September 13, 2018, defendants HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Wells Fargo Asset Securities 20 Corporation, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (collectively, “defendants”) filed their motion for 21 summary judgment. (ECF No. 45). On November 13, 2018, plaintiff Edyta Gryglak (“plaintiff”) 22 filed her response to defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 56). However, at the end of her response, 23 plaintiff included a purported “counter-motion” for summary judgment against defendants. See 24 (ECF No. 56 at 15). 25 Local Rule IC 2-2(b) provides, in relevant part, “[f]or each type of relief requested or 26 purpose of the document, a separate document must be filed and a separate event must be selected 27 for that document.” LR IC 2-2(b). Plaintiff’s combining her response to defendants’ motion with 28 her own cross-motion for summary judgment violates LR IC 2-2(b), and therefore the court will James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge 1 not recognize plaintiff’s response insofar as it purports to include a separate motion for summary 2 judgment. If plaintiff wishes to file her own motion for summary judgment, she may do so via a 3 separate filing. 4 Accordingly, because the parties’ stipulation intends to grant defendants’ additional time 5 to respond to plaintiff’s “motion,” the court will deny the stipulation as moot. However, to the 6 extent that defendants intend to file a reply to plaintiff’s response to the motion for summary 7 judgment (ECF No. 45), the court will grant defendants until January 4, 2019, as contemplated by 8 the parties’ stipulation. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ second stipulation for extension of time (ECF No. 61) be, and the same hereby, is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall have until January 4, 2019, to file their reply to the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 45). DATED December 21, 2018. __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -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?