Jones v. Skolnik et al

Filing 458

ORDERED that Plaintiff's # 453 Motion for an Order Directing Defendants to Answer is DENIED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 11/20/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7

***

8
9

CHRISTOPHER A. JONES,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

3:10-CV-00162-LRH-VPC

ORDER

HOWARD SKOLNIK, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15

Before the court is Plaintiff Christopher A. Jones’ (“Jones”) Motion for an Order

16

Directing Defendants’ James G. Cox and Brian Williams to Answer Plaintiff’s Complaint. Doc.

17

#453.1 Defendants filed a response (Doc. #457), to which Jones did not reply.

18

I. Background
On July 22, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for order directing an answer and

19
20

directed Defendants Skolnik, Cox, and Williams to answer Jones’ first amended complaint

21

within 21 days. Doc. #445. On September 18, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued

22

an order staying district court proceedings with respect to Howard Skolnik pending disposition

23

of appeal and denying a motion to stay as to defendants Williams and Cox. Doc. #452. On

24

October 2, 2015, Jones filed the present motion for order directing Defendants Williams and Cox

25

to remit an immediate answer. Doc. #453. On October 5, 2015, Cox and Williams filed an

26

answer to the amended complaint. Doc. #454. On October 9, 2015, Jones filed conditional

27
28

1

Refers to the Court’s docket number.

1

1

notice of withdrawal. Doc. #455. On October 22, 2015, Defendants Cox and Williams filed a

2

notice of change of attorney (Doc. #456) and a response to Jones’ motion (Doc. #457).

3

II. Discussion

4

In his conditional notice of withdrawal, Jones stated that his motion for an immediate

5

answer would be “deemed withdrawn immediately once all formal notices [regarding who was

6

the lead counsel of record] are filed with this court. Doc. #455. On October 22, 2015,

7

Defendants filed their notice of change of lead counsel with respect to Cox and Williams.

8

Because Jones’ stated condition for the withdrawal of his motion has been met, his motion is

9

denied as moot.

10

III. Conclusion

11
12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Directing
Defendants to Answer (Doc. 453) is DENIED.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED this 20th day of November, 2015.

15

LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2