From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Galego v. Bannister

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Oct 31, 2011
3:10-CV-00468-LRH (WGC) (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2011)

Opinion

3:10-CV-00468-LRH (WGC)

10-31-2011

LUIS GALEGO Plaintiff, v. BRUCE BANNISTER, et al., Defendants.

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING


MINUTES OF THE COURT

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEPUTY CLERK: JENNIFER COTTER REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:

Plaintiff has filed a motion to strike Defendants' answer because the allegations are "impertinent and scandalous" and "their only purpose is to create prejudice against Plaintiff. (Doc. # 55)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) provides for the filing of a complaint and an answer and various other pleadings. Defendants filed their answer on December 1, 2010. (Doc. # 15.) The court has reviewed Defendants' answer, and finds nothing impertinent or scandalous. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to strike (Doc. # 55) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

Deputy Clerk


Summaries of

Galego v. Bannister

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Oct 31, 2011
3:10-CV-00468-LRH (WGC) (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2011)
Case details for

Galego v. Bannister

Case Details

Full title:LUIS GALEGO Plaintiff, v. BRUCE BANNISTER, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Oct 31, 2011

Citations

3:10-CV-00468-LRH (WGC) (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2011)