Miller v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. et al

Filing 108

ORDER Denying 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 103 , 104 , 105 , Motions for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/5/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

MELVA N. MILLER,

Case No. 2:17-CV-2103 JCM (DJA)

8
9
10

Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
GREYHOUND LINES, INC., et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is the matter of Miller v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., et al., case no.

14

2:17-cv-02103-JCM-DJA.

15

defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. (“Greyhound”): negligence; strict products liability; negligent

16

failure to inspect and warn; breach of implied warranty; negligent hiring, training, and

17

supervision;1 and negligent entrustment. (ECF No. 1).

Plaintiff Melva N Miller asserts six causes of action against

18

On December 4, 2019, Greyhound filed seven motions for partial summary judgment.

19

(ECF Nos. 98–101, 104–105). Each motion addresses one of the six causes of action, and the

20

seventh motion addresses plaintiff’s request for punitive damages. See id.

21

Local Rule 7-3 provides that “[m]otions for summary judgment and responses to motions

22

for summary judgment are limited to 30 pages, excluding exhibits.” LR 7-3(a). The Rule also

23

states that, “[i]n the absence of a court order by the deadline for the underlying motion or brief,

24

the motion to exceed page limits is deemed denied.” LR 7-3(c).

25
26
1

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Although plaintiff asserts three different claims—one negligent hiring claim, one
negligent training claim, and one negligent supervision claim—Nevada law treats this as one
claim. See, e.g., Okeke v. Biomat USA, Inc., 927 F. Supp. 2d 1021, 1028 (D. Nev. 2013); Reece
v. Republic Services, Inc., 2:10-cv-00114-GMN-RJJ, 2011 WL 868386, *11 (D. Nev. Mar. 10,
2011). The court will do the same.

1

Greyhound’s motions are clearly an attempt to sidestep the 30-page limit for summary

2

judgment motions.

3

Courts in this district have denied rule-evading motions in similar

circumstances.

4

For instance, in Ahuja v. W. United Ins. Co., “[d]efendant proceeded to file four separate

5

motions for summary judgment. Three motions attacked [p]laintiff’s contract-based claims,

6

[p]laintiff’s claim under Nevada’s unfair trade practices laws, and [p]laintiff’s request for

7

punitive damages. The fourth motion contested whether the car accident caused [p]laintiff’s

8

injuries.” Ahuja v. W. United Ins. Co., No. 3:13-CV-00038-MMD, 2015 WL 5310751, at *2 (D.

9

Nev. Sept. 11, 2015). The court noted that, “[t]ogether, [d]efendant’s four motions exceeded the

10

local rules’ page limit” and “accordingly denied the motions without prejudice and ordered their

11

consolidation.” Id.

12
13
14
15

Thus, the court will deny the motions without prejudice. Greyhound is instructed to file a
single motion for summary judgment that complies with this court’s rules.
The court finds it necessary to remind Greyhound of Local Rule 7-3(c), which provides,
in relevant part, as follows:

16

The court looks with disfavor on motions to exceed page limits, so
permission to do so will not be routinely granted. A motion to file
a brief that exceeds these page limits will be granted only upon a
showing of good cause. A motion to exceed these page limits must
be filed before the motion or brief is due and must be accompanied
by a declaration stating in detail the reasons for, and number of,
additional pages requested. The motion must not be styled as an ex
parte or emergency motion and is limited to three pages in length.
Failure to comply with 42 this subsection will result in denial of
the request. The filing of a motion to exceed the page limit does
not stay the deadline for the underlying motion or brief.

17
18
19
20
21
22
LR 7-3(c).
23

Accordingly,
24

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Greyhound’s motion for

25
partial summary judgment (ECF No. 98) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice.
26

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Greyhound’s motion for

27
partial summary judgment (ECF No. 99) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice.
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Greyhound’s motion for

2

partial summary judgment (ECF No. 100) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without

3

prejudice.

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Greyhound’s motion for

5

partial summary judgment (ECF No. 101) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without

6

prejudice.

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Greyhound’s motion for

8

partial summary judgment (ECF No. 103) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without

9

prejudice.

10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Greyhound’s motion for

11

partial summary judgment (ECF No. 104) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without

12

prejudice.

13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Greyhound’s motion for

14

partial summary judgment (ECF No. 105) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without

15

prejudice.

16
17
18

DATED December 5, 2019.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-