Fernandez v. State of North Dakota
Filing
151
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. finding as moot 138 Motion for Reconsideration ; finding as moot 138 Motion for Extension of Time to File; granting 140 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; finding as moot 144 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. (BG) Distributed on 3/24/2014 (jt).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
Kevin Fernandez,
Plaintiff,
vs.
State of North Dakota, et. al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Case No. 1:12-cv-161
On February 6, 2014, plaintiff filed a “ Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Plaintiff’s
Opposition for Motion for Summary Judgment.” (Doc. No. 133). On February 12, 2014, the court
granted the motion and ordered that plaintiff was to file a response to defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment on or before February 28, 2014. (Dock. No. 134).
On February 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed the following: “Motion to Clarify Order (134) , Motion
Reconsider Order (134), Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.”
On February 27, 2014 plaintiff filed a “Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation in
Plaintiff’s Opposition and Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment.” He sought leave to file
combined brief in opposition to defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and in support of his
forthcoming Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with more pages designated for argument than
is permitted under D.N.D. Civ. L.R. 7.1(A). On March 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment. He also filed a combined brief (fifty-eight pages in length) in support of his
motion and in opposition to defendants’ motion.
On March 10, 2014, defendants filed a motion requesting an extension of time in which to
1
file their response to plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and their reply to plaintiff’s
response in opposition to defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
First, defendants’ motion requesting an extension of time in which to file their response to
plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary judgment and their reply to plaintiff's opposition to
defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 144) is deemed MOOT; defendants filed
the aforementioned response and reply on March 21, 2013.
Second, Plaintiff’s “Motion to Clarify Order (134), Motion Reconsider Order (134), Motion
for Enlargement of Time to File Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” (Docket No. 138)
are also DEEMED MOOT as plaintiff has now filed his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Third, plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation in Plaintiff's Opposition and
Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment” (Docket No. 140) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 24th day of March, 2014.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
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?