Koerner v. Cox et al

Filing 102

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke, on 8/14/2013, granting 85 Motion to Strike 82 Cross-MOTION for Summary Judgment. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

KELLY KOERNER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JAMES GREG COX, et. al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
PRESENT:

3:11-cv-00116-LRH-VPC

MINUTES OF THE COURT

August 14, 2013

THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEPUTY CLERK:

LISA MANN

REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary
judgment (#85). 1 Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Defendants ask the court to strike
plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment (#82) on the ground that plaintiff filed this
document after the time for filing dispositive motions had passed.
A federal court has inherent authority to regulate the conduct of those appearing before it
and to manage the administration of its business. Spurlock v. F.B.I., 69 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir.
1995). The court notes that the deadline for filing dispositive motions in this case was December
14, 2012 (#57). However, plaintiff did not file his cross-motion for summary judgment (#82)
until April 11, 2013. Although plaintiff received numerous extensions of time to file his
opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment (#73), the court did not grant plaintiff
an extension of time to file his own dispositive motion. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to
strike plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment (#85) is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:
1

Refers to the court’s docket numbers.
1

/s/
Deputy Clerk

2