From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boykin v. City of North Las Vegas

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Dec 6, 2010
Case No. 2:09-cv-2373-RLH-RJJ, 2:10-cv-0737-RLH-RJJ (D. Nev. Dec. 6, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 2:09-cv-2373-RLH-RJJ, 2:10-cv-0737-RLH-RJJ.

December 6, 2010


ORDER (Motion to Amend Complaint-#23)


Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to File Amended Complaint in Case No. 2:09-cv-2373-RLH-RJJ (#23, FILED September 23, 2010). No opposition has been filed.

Local Rule 7-2(d) provides that failure to file points and authorities in opposition to a motion constitutes a consent that the motion be granted. Abbott v. United Venture Capitol, Inc. 718 F.Supp. 828, 831 (D. Nev. 1989). It has been said these local rules, no less than the federal rules or acts of Congress, have the force of law. United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 574-575 (1958); Well v. Neary, 278 U.S. 160, 169 (1929); Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722, 723 (9th Cir. 1995). The United States Supreme Court itself has upheld the dismissal of a matter for failure to respond under the local court rules. Black Unity League of Kentucky v. Miller, 394 U.S. 100, 89 S. Ct. 766 (1969).

Furthermore, the motion appears to have merit and permitting the amendment would be in the interests of justice.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to File Amended Complaint in Case No. 2:09-cv-2373-RLH-RJJ (#23) is GRANTED.

Dated: December 6, 2010.


Summaries of

Boykin v. City of North Las Vegas

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Dec 6, 2010
Case No. 2:09-cv-2373-RLH-RJJ, 2:10-cv-0737-RLH-RJJ (D. Nev. Dec. 6, 2010)
Case details for

Boykin v. City of North Las Vegas

Case Details

Full title:MARK ANTHONY BOYKIN, Plaintiff(s), v. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, and JOSEPH…

Court:United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Dec 6, 2010

Citations

Case No. 2:09-cv-2373-RLH-RJJ, 2:10-cv-0737-RLH-RJJ (D. Nev. Dec. 6, 2010)