Thomas v. Zachry et al

Filing 56

ORDER denying without prejudice Defendants' ECF No. 27 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/13/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 LORI L. THOMAS; 10 Plaintiff, Case No. 3:17-cv-0219-LRH-(WGC) 11 v. 12 ORDER THOMAS ZACHRY; MARNA ZACHRY; JOHN HARPER; and STOREY COUNTY and its BOARD OF COMISSIONERS, 13 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Before the court is defendants Thomas Zachry, Marna Zachry, and John Harper’s 18 (“homeowner defendants”) motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff Lori L. Thomas 19 (“Thomas”) filed an opposition (ECF No. 36) to which homeowner defendants did not reply. 20 This case has an extensive factual and procedural background,1 but in short, this case 21 involves a dispute over a dirt road in Storey County, Nevada, commonly known as “Sutro 22 Springs Road” which runs across Thomas’ real property. Thomas brought suit against defendants 23 for declaratory relief and to quiet title to the roadway along her property. See ECF No. 1. In 24 response, homeowner defendants filed the present motion for summary judgment which was 25 filed prior to any discovery by the parties. ECF No. 27. Thomas then filed an opposition 26 contending that the motion was premature as no discovery had taken place (ECF No. 36) and 27 28 For a more complete history of the factual and procedural history in this action, see the court’s order on Thomas’s motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 41). 1 1 1 homeowner defendants did not respond to Thomas’s opposition. However, homeowner 2 defendants have since stipulated to a discovery and scheduling order with Thomas which 3 governs discovery in this action and sets the date for filing of dispositive motions in early 2018. 4 See ECF No. 54. Therefore, based on the homeowner defendants’ recognition that discovery in 5 this action should be undertaken, their failure to respond to Thomas’s opposition to the motion, 6 and the concrete date for the filing of dispositive motions, the court shall deny the present motion 7 for summary judgment without prejudice. 8 9 10 11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 27) is DENIED without prejudice. DATED this 13th day of September, 2017. 12 13 LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?