3:23-cv-00091•Hawley v. Neurocrine Biosciences
Gesamter Gesetzestext
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:23-CV-091-RJC-DCK THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff’s Response To Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss And Plaintiff’s Motion For Extension Of Time To Perfect Service” (Document No. 11) filed July 20, 2023. This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, the undersigned will respectfully deny the motion. The instant filing violates the Local Rules of this Court which directs that: Motions shall not be included in responsive briefs. Each motion must be set forth as a separately filed pleading. LCvR 7.1 (c)(2) IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Response To Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss And Plaintiff’s Motion For Extension Of Time To Perfect Service” (Document No. 11) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a revised response to the pending motion to dismiss on or before July 25, 2023. Plaintiff may file a separate motion seeking other relief. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Clerk of Court shall strike Document Nos. 11 and 12. CHAD L. HAWLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES, ) ) Defendant. ) ) Case 3:23-cv-00091-GCM Document 13 Filed 07/21/23 Page 1 of 2
2 SO ORDERED. Signed: July 21, 2023 Case 3:23-cv-00091-GCM Document 13 Filed 07/21/23 Page 2 of 2
OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:23-CV-091-RJ C-DCK CHAD L. HAWLEY, V. ORDER NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES, Defendant. Ne we we we oe oe oe se THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff's Response To Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss And Plaintiffs Motion For Extension Of Time To Perfect Service” (Document No. 11) filed July 20, 2023. This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate J udge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, the undersigned will respectfully deny the motion. The instant filing violates the Local Rules of this Court which directs that: Motions shall not be included in responsive briefs. Each motion must be set forth as a separately filed pleading. LCvR 7.1 (c)(2) IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiffs Response To Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss And Plaintiff's Motion For Extension Of Time To Perfect Service” (Document No. 11) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a revised response to the pending motion to dismiss on or before July 25, 2023. Plaintiff may file a separate motion seeking other relief. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Clerk of Court shall strike Document Nos. 11 and 12. INFORMATION SO ORDERED. Signed: July 21, 2023 Dar pe A NX / j David C. Keesler 4 United States Magistrate Judge 2 Case 3:23-cv-00091-GCM Document13_ Filed 07/21/23 Page 2 of 2
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.