McNamara v. Patten et al

Filing 56

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 47 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 52 Defendants' Cross Motion to Correct or Amend Judgment is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 46 the Judgmen t is VACATED, and that this matter shall be REOPENED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall have until 9/26/19 to refile their Motion to Dismiss.Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 9/12/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
THOMAS W. MCNAMARA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4
Plaintiff,

5
6

vs.
GARY PATTEN, et al.,

7
Defendants.

8

Case No.: 2:17-cv-02968-GMN-NJK
ORDER

9
10

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Thomas McNamara’s

11

(“Plaintiff”) Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No. 47), in which he requests that the Court

12

withdraw the Order, (ECF No. 45), issued by the Honorable James C. Mahan and the

13

accompanying Judgment, (ECF No. 46), “reopen the case, and order the appropriate relief,

14

whether that be the transfer or reassignment of this case to [Judge Navarro] . . . .” (Mot.

15

Recons. 5:11–13, ECF No. 47). Subsequent to the filing of Plaintiff’s Motion, the case was

16

transferred to the undersigned, pursuant to the Court’s Omnibus Transfer Order, (ECF No. 49).

17

Defendant Gary Patten and Defendant Pano Advisors, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) then

18

filed a Response, (ECF No. 52), indicating that they “do not oppose Plaintiff’s Reconsideration

19

Motion.” (Resp. 4:14–15, ECF No. 52). Defendants further indicate that in the event Plaintiff’s

20

Motion is denied, then alternatively, the Court should grant Defendant’s Cross Motion to

21

Correct or Amend Judgment, (ECF No. 52).

22

Accordingly, because the Omnibus Transfer Order, (ECF No. 49), eliminates the need for

23

Plaintiff’s requested relief, IT IS HEBEBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for

24

Reconsideration, (ECF No. 47), is DENIED as moot.

25

///

Page 1 of 2

1

Moreover, because Defendants’ Motion, (ECF No. 52), is phrased in the alternative, IT

2

IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Cross Motion to Correct or Amend Judgment,

3

(ECF No. 52), is DENIED as moot.

4
5
6
7
8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Judgment, (ECF No. 46), is VACATED, and
that this matter shall be REOPENED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall have until September 26, 2019, to
refile their Motion to Dismiss, should they elect to do so.
12
DATED this _____ day of September, 2019.

9
10
11

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge
United States District Court

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2