Steven Floyd Voss v. Isidaro Baca et al

Filing 122

ORDER - Plaintiff's # 119 Motion to strike is DENIED. Ps response to # 117 Motion for summary judgment due by 6/9/2015. Reply due by 6/23/2015. THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS relative to briefing on Defendants' # 117 Motion for summary judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 5/19/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

STEVEN FLOYD VOSS,

7
8
9

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER

v.
ISIDRO BACA, et. al.,

10
11

3:14-cv-00066-RCJ-WGC

Defendants.
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment Regarding Counts III and IV of Civil Rights Complaint. (Doc. # 120.)1

13

Plaintiff filed a partial motion for summary judgment. (Doc. # 39.) On October 27, 2014,

14

Defendants filed a response as well as a cross-motion to dismiss Counts I and II, Plaintiff’s

15

claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act

16

(RA) and a First Amendment retaliation claim. (Docs. # 73/74.) Plaintiff filed a reply in support

17

of his motion (Doc. # 83), as well as a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. # 85).

18

Defendants filed a reply in support of their cross-motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 89.)

19

An amended scheduling order was entered on December 9, 2014, and provided that

20

dispositive motions were due by May 4, 2015. (Doc. # 99.) On May 4, 2015, Defendants filed a

21

motion for summary judgment as to Counts III and IV of Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. # 117.)

22

In his motion to strike, Plaintiff essentially argues that Defendants’ were not entitled to

23

bring a successive dispositive motion and should have raised the issues as to Counts III and IV in

24

their motion addressing Counts I and II. (Doc. # 120.)

25

Nothing in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 precludes the filing of successive motions

26

for summary judgment. Notably, the amended scheduling order was entered after Plaintiff’s filed

27
28
1

Refers to court’s docket number.

1

their cross-motion to dismiss, and expressly contemplated the filing of further dispositive

2

motions, if done so by the May 4, 2015 deadline. Moreover, if a claim is capable of being

3

determined by way of a motion for summary judgment, rather than trial, it is in the interests of

4

judicial economy to resolve the claim by way of a dispositive motion. Defendants timely filed

5

their motion as to Counts III and IV pursuant to the scheduling order and the court will consider

6

it in due course. Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Doc. # 120) is DENIED. Plaintiff shall file and

7

serve a response to the motion for summary judgment as to Counts III and IV on or before

8

June 9, 2015. Defendants shall file a reply on or before June 23, 2015.

9

It is the court’s intention to address all of the dispositive motions pending in this action

10

together, within the time parameters of the current reporting period of the Civil Justice Reform

11

Act. Therefore, THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS relative to briefing on

12

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated: May 19, 2015.

__________________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

-2-