Otterson vs UberEats, Inc et al

Filing 20

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions (ECF Nos. 17 , 18 , and 19 ) are denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 5/10/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

Download PDF
Case 2:22-cv-00054-JAD-DJA Document 20 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 1 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 *** James Paul Otterson, Case No. 2:22-cv-00054-JAD-DJA Plaintiff, Order v. Uber Eats, Inc., et al., Defendants. 11 12 Before the Court are Plaintiff James Paul Otterson’s motion to respond (ECF No. 17), 13 motion to identify attorneys (ECF No. 18), and motion to identify counsel (ECF No. 19). Other 14 than their titles, these three motions are identical. The requested relief, however, does not match 15 up with the titles. In each motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to “move the trial, as well as the trial- 16 related deadlines and non-trial related deadlines” to June 1, 2022. The Court interprets Plaintiff 17 as referring to those deadlines which would typically be set by a discovery plan and scheduling 18 order under Local Rule 26-1. However, there is no discovery plan and scheduling order in this 19 case. No defendants or other parties have appeared in this case. And Plaintiff does not assert to 20 have initiated the scheduling of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference which 21 would trigger case-related deadlines under Local Rule 26-1. 22 23 24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 17, 18, and 19) are denied without prejudice. 25 26 27 28 DATED: May 10, 2022 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 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?