Garcia v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC et al

Filing 52

ORDER that 41 Stipulation for Extension of Time is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 6/14/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5

TONY A. GARCIA,
6

Plaintiff,
7
8
9
10

vs.
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC;
AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP,;
TOYOTA FINANCIAL SERVICES; WELLS
FARGO CARD SERVICES; EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC,

11

2:17-cv-01721-RFB-VCF
ORDER
FOURTH REQUEST FOR STIPULATION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF NO. 41)

Defendants.

12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiff Troy A. Garcia (“Garcia”), and Defendant Specialized Loan

14

Servicing, LLC’s (“SLS”) stipulation and request for extension of the pre-trial order deadline. (ECF No.

15

41). For the reasons discussed below, the request is denied as moot.

16

On May 1, 2018, the undersigned Magistrate Judge granted the parties’ third stipulation for

17

extension of time, extending the dispositive motion deadline. (ECF No. 34). Beginning on page 3, line

18

15, the order states that “[i]f dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order

19

will be suspended until 30 days after decision on the dispositive motions or further court order.” (ECF

20

No. 34 at 3).

21

Both parties filed dispositive motions in the matter on May 14, 2018. (ECF Nos. 35, 37). On

22

May 30, 2018, Judge Richard F. Boulware granted the parties’ request to extend the time to respond to

23

these motions to June 25, 2018. (ECF No. 44). On May 25, 2018, the parties filed this stipulation with

24

the Court requesting an extension of the pre-trial order deadline until thirty (30) days after a ruling on

25

the parties’ dispositive motions. (ECF No 41 at 1).

1

Consistent with the May 1, 2018 order (ECF No. 34), Local Rule 26-1(b)(5) provides that when a

2

party files a dispositive motion, the deadline for the joint pretrial order is suspended until thirty (30) days

3

after a ruling on the motion. Given that both parties have filed dispositive motions in the matter, the

4

parties’ request for extension of time is unnecessary, and therefore denied as moot.

5

ACCORDINGLY,

6

IT IS SO ORDERED the parties’ stipulation for extension of time is DENIED AS MOOT.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

DATED this 14th day of June, 2018.
_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE