Gillo v. Department of Transportation

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8] JEREMIA GILLO, Case No. 2:22-cv-00857-CDS-NJK 9 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 10] v. [Docket No. 12] THE HONORABLE PETE BUTTIGIEG, 12 Defendant(s). 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. Docket No. 12. Asa 14] threshold matter, it is not clear that leave of Court is required for Plaintiff to amend given that no defendant has appeared in the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1); see also Vanguard Outdoor, LLC 16] v. City of Los Angeles, 648 F.3d 737, 748 (9th Cir. 2011). To the extent leave is required, the 17] motion contains no points and authorities or meaningfully developed argument. But see Local 18] Rule 7-2(d); Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013). 19] Accordingly, the motion for leave to amend is DENIED without prejudice. 21 Dated: September 19, 2022 ,

Nancy J_ Kopp e 23 United States’ Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28