Parker v. Bally's Corporation

D. Nevada

Parker v. Bally's Corporation

DecidedApril 1, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-01880

StatusUnknown

This text of Parker v. Bally's Corporation (Parker v. Bally's Corporation) 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

Parker v. Bally's Corporation, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 || Sophia Parker, 2:24-cv-01880-CDS-MDC 4 Plaintiff, vs. ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION

6 || Bally's Corporation, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 For good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulation to Stay Discovery (ECF 9 || No. 60) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a discovery plan and 10 || proposed scheduling within thirty (30) days of a decision denying in whole or in part defendants’ 11 || Motions to Dismiss. 12 The Court notes that plaintiff seeks to proceed under a pseudonym and has failed to file a 13 || certificate of interested parties. Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall show 14 || cause why she may prosecute this matter under a pseudonym AND be excused from the requirements of 15 || Local Rule 7.1-1. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“the title of the complaint must name all the parties); see 16 || also Doe v. Kamehameha Sch., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal citations omitted) (“The 17 ||normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names.”). Plaintiff shall file a response 18 || showing cause, if any, within thirty (30) days of a decision denying in whole or in part defendants’ 19 || Motions to Dismiss or granting plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.” 20 21 DATED this 1* day of April 2025. 7 we 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. phe ff fi Hog’Maximiliario D./Ceevillier III 23 nited States Wlagistfate Judge 24 25

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

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 || Sophia Parker, 2:24-cv-01880-CDS-MDC 4 Plaintiff, vs. ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION

6 || Bally's Corporation, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 For good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulation to Stay Discovery (ECF 9 || No. 60) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a discovery plan and 10 || proposed scheduling within thirty (30) days of a decision denying in whole or in part defendants’ 11 || Motions to Dismiss. 12 The Court notes that plaintiff seeks to proceed under a pseudonym and has failed to file a 13 || certificate of interested parties. Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall show 14 || cause why she may prosecute this matter under a pseudonym AND be excused from the requirements of 15 || Local Rule 7.1-1. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“the title of the complaint must name all the parties); see 16 || also Doe v. Kamehameha Sch., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal citations omitted) (“The 17 ||normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names.”). Plaintiff shall file a response 18 || showing cause, if any, within thirty (30) days of a decision denying in whole or in part defendants’ 19 || Motions to Dismiss or granting plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.” 20 21 DATED this 1* day of April 2025. 7 we 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. phe ff fi Hog’Maximiliario D./Ceevillier III 23 nited States Wlagistfate Judge 24 25

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Parker v. Bally's Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-ballys-corporation-nvd-2025.