Guidi v. Quality Loan Service Corp.
ORDER that 12 Plaintiff's Notice to the Court of Defendants' Non-Compliance is construed as a Motion to Strike and is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 1/2/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM) Modified on 1/5/2018 to reflect correct date signed (MMM).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
RICHEY GARRISON GUIDI,
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP. et al.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02946-APG-CWH
Presently before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Richey Garrison Guidi’s notice to the Court of
Defendants’ non-compliance (ECF No. 12), filed on December 20, 2017. Defendant filed a response
(ECF No. 15) on December 28, 2017. This document is styled as a “notice” but appears to be a
motion to strike. Given Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will construe the document as a motion to
Plaintiff’s notice requests that the Court strike Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6),
arguing that the motion failed to comply with Local Rule IA 10-1, which requires that all documents
filed with the Court must be legible and must not be double-sided. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s
motion to dismiss was mailed to him were “doubled sided and disheveled making it impossible for
Plaintiff to reference.” However, Local Rule IA 10-1 applies to documents filed with the Court, not
documents served on parties. Further, as Plaintiff was able to file a response (ECF No. 9) to
Defendant’s motion to dismiss, the Court finds no prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike is DENIED.
DATED: January 2, 2018
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?