Ball v. Stratosphere Gaming, LLC d/b/a The Strat

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedApril 9, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-00071
StatusUnknown

This text of Ball v. Stratosphere Gaming, LLC d/b/a The Strat (Ball v. Stratosphere Gaming, LLC d/b/a The Strat) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ball v. Stratosphere Gaming, LLC d/b/a The Strat, (D. Nev. 2024).

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 William H Ball, 2:24-cv-00071-GMN-NJK 4 Plaintiff(s), ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 5 MOTION TO STAY THE EARLY vs. NEUTRAL EVALUATION (ECF NO. 21) 6 AND VACATING PRIOR ORDER (ECF NO. 7 Stratosphere Gaming, LLC, et al., 9) 8 Defendant(s). 9 The Court has reviewed the defendants’ Motion To Stay The Early Neutral Evaluation. ECF No. 10 21. The plaintiff did not file an opposition. “The failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities 11 in response to any motion, except a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or a motion for attorney’s fees, 12 constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.” See Local Rule 7-2(d). 13 Since plaintiff has not opposed the motion and the time to do so has passed, the Court grants the 14 defendants’ Motion To Stay The Early Neutral Evaluation. ECF No. 21. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED that: 16 1. Defendants’ Motion To Stay The Early Neutral Evaluation (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED. 17 2. The previously scheduled Early Neutral Evaluation (ECF No. 9) is VACATED. 18 NOTICE 19 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 20 21 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 22 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 23 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 24 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections 25 within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court.

5 Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 3 || 454 Oth Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR JA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with 4 court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing 5 || party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply 6 || with this order may result in dismissal of this case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. i ZA a □ ffs . 8 Dated this 9th day of April 2024. J i X TT pr {/ \ 10 tf if 4 ait m United States iagistratg’ Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ball v. Stratosphere Gaming, LLC d/b/a The Strat, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ball-v-stratosphere-gaming-llc-dba-the-strat-nvd-2024.