Hunter v. America First Credit Union

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7| LARRY L. HUNTER, Case No. 2:24-cv-01960-APG-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9} v. [Docket Nos. 12, 14] 10] AMERICA FIRST CREDIT UNION, 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to strike. Docket No. 12 (seeking to strike 13] Docket Nos. 8 and 11). Also pending before the Court is Defendant’s second motion to strike. 14] Docket No. 14 (seeking to strike Docket No. 13). No response has been filed to either motion. 15], Accordingly, the motions to strike are GRANTED as unopposed. See Local Rule 7-2(d). The 16], Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to strike Docket Nos. 8, 11, and 13. 17 Defendant also asks the Court to “clarify” the status of service and any obligation to 18] respond. E.g., Docket No. 12 at 8. The undersigned is a judge; the undersigned is not a co-counsel 19] or a paralegal for the defense. Cf Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004) Gudges “have no 20] obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants”). Moreover, the local rules already 21} explain the import (or lack thereof) of deadlines contained in automatically-generated CMECF 22] notices, so counsel should familiarize themselves with the governing provisions which are 23] available on the Court’s website. The request for the Court to “clarify” is DENIED. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: January 3, 2025 .

Nancy J\Koppe 27 United States Magistrate Judge 28