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)

Download PDF
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

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?