From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Otterson v. Uber Eats

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Apr 11, 2022
2:22-cv-00054-JAD-DJA (D. Nev. Apr. 11, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-00054-JAD-DJA

04-11-2022

James Paul Otterson, Plaintiff v. Uber Eats, et al., Defendants


ORDER DENYING MOTIONS ECF NOS. 12, 13

JENNIFER A. DORSEY, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

On April 11, 2022, Plaintiff James Paul Otterson filed motions entitled “Motion to Reconsider” and “Motion to Change Venue.” In both motions, he asks the court to “move the trial, as well as all trial-related deadlines and non-trial-related deadlines to the following Dated: 04/08/22.” The court denies this request because no trial or trial-related deadlines have yet been set in this case, so there are no such deadlines to move.

ECF Nos. 12, 13.

The court also notes that the caption on both of these motions reflects that the defendants are “Intermountain HealthCare and Dr. Edward Clark.” But Intermountain and Clark are not parties to this case; this case is against Uber Eats, Inc. and GrubHub Inc.

Id.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motions to reconsider and change venue [ECF Nos. 12, 13] are DENIED.


Summaries of

Otterson v. Uber Eats

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Apr 11, 2022
2:22-cv-00054-JAD-DJA (D. Nev. Apr. 11, 2022)
Case details for

Otterson v. Uber Eats

Case Details

Full title:James Paul Otterson, Plaintiff v. Uber Eats, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Apr 11, 2022

Citations

2:22-cv-00054-JAD-DJA (D. Nev. Apr. 11, 2022)