Morgan Stanley Co., Inc. v. Shriners Hosp. for Ch.

Full title: MORGAN STANLEY CO., INC., Interpleader Plaintiff, v. SHRINERS HOSPITALS…

Court: United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Nov 1, 2010

CASE NO.: 2:09-cv-00398-JCM-PAL (D. Nev. Nov. 1, 2010)

Opinion

CASE NO.: 2:09-cv-00398-JCM-PAL.

November 1, 2010

WILLIAM R. URGA, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 1195, MINDY C. FISHER, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 11121, JOLLEY URGA WIRTH WOODBURY STANDISH, Las Vegas, Nevada, Attorneys for Interpleader Defendants Shriners Hospitals for Children and Shriners Hospitals for Children (Quebec), Inc.

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, ERIC SWANIS¹, ESQ. #6840, F. CHRISTOPHER AUSTIN, ESQ. #6559, Las Vegas, Nevada.

1 Undersigned counsel was unable to obtain approval from counsel for Morgan Stanley Co. as Mr. Austin was not able to be reached, and as a result, this Proposed Order is filed without said approval.

ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK ALBRIGHT, MARK ALBRIGHT, ESQ. #1394, WHITNEY B. WARNICK, ESQ. #1573, Las Vegas, Nevada.

WRIGHT WEINER, LTD., JOHN HENRY WRIGHT, ESQ. #6182, Las Vegas, Nevada.

ORDER

JAMES MAHAN, District Judge

Presently before the Court is Interpleader Defendant The Estate of Maurits Jozef Van Praag's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 56), filed on April 5, 2010. Interpleader Defendants Shriners Hospitals for Children and Shriners Hospitals for Children (Quebec), Inc. filed an opposition (Doc. # 57) and Interpleader Defendant Joseph Surace filed an opposition (Doc. # 58), both on April 29, 2010. The Estate filed a reply (Doc. 59) on May 11, 2010.

The motion came on for hearing before the Honorable James C. Mahan on August 3, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. As a result of a request for additional time for discovery made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), the matter was continued until September 10, 2010, to provide additional time for Interpleader Plaintiff Morgan Stanley Co. Inc. to answer outstanding discovery.

The Court will deny the motion because it finds that the motion relied upon and referred to exhibits not properly authenticated.See Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764 (2002). The Court will deny the motion without prejudice and the Estate is not precluded from filing a motion for reconsideration if it is able to remedy the deficiencies in the motion for summary judgment.

After consideration of the pleadings and papers on file, and the oral arguments by counsel,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Interpleader Defendant The Estate of Maurits Jozef Van Praag's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 1st day of November, 2010.