Case Information
*1 Case 2:15-cv-00476-JCM-CWH Document 92 Filed 03/16/17 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 2:15-CV-476 JCM (VCF) Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL I, LLC, et al., Defendant(s). Presently before the court is the matter of Green Tree Servicing LLC v. SFR Investments Pool1, LLC et al. , case number 2:15-cv-00476-JCM-VCF. On February 16, 2017, the court ordered the parties to file a new proposed scheduling order for the completion of any necessary briefing and discovery within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 86).
Rather than complying with the court’s ordered deadline, the parties improperly filed a stipulation, titled “Joint Proposed Scheduling Order,” wherein the parties decided to set their own deadlines. (ECF No. 88). Specifically, the parties reset the proposed scheduling order deadline for fourteen (14) days after the court enters a decision on a motion for reconsideration that Ditech Financial LLC f/k/a Green Tree Servicing, LLC (“Ditech”) “intended” to file. (ECF No. 88).
It is well established that the district courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and manage their affairs; this includes the power to strike or deny motions to streamline motion practice and promote judicial efficiency. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404–05 (9th Cir. 2010); see also LR IC 7-1 (“The court may strike documents that do not comply with these rules.”).
James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge
*2 Case 2:15-cv-00476-JCM-CWH Document 92 Filed 03/16/17 Page 2 of 2 In light of the foregoing, the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 88) will be stricken and Ditech’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 91) will be denied. The parties shall file within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order a new proposed scheduling order for the completion of any necessary briefing and discovery. Further, the parties shall ensure that all future filings comply with the federal and local rules. The court cautions that the parties’ failure to timely comply will result in appropriate sanctions.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the parties’ “joint
proposed scheduling order” (ECF No. 88) be, and the same hereby is, STRICKEN. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ditech’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 91) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order the parties shall file a new proposed scheduling order for the completion of any necessary briefing and discovery.
DATED March 16, 2017.
__________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge
- 2 -