From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ahmad v. Dimartino

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Apr 17, 2009
3:09-cv-00071-LRH-(RAM) (D. Nev. Apr. 17, 2009)

Opinion

3:09-cv-00071-LRH-(RAM).

April 17, 2009


ORDER


Plaintiffs have not responded to this Court's Order (#6) advising that Defendant Western Title Company's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (#3) would be granted for failure to respond pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d) by Friday, April 10, 2009.

The copy of Order (#6) was returned in the mail marked "Not Deliverable As Addressed." Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Local Rule LSR 2-2, which requires Plaintiffs to promptly inform the Court of any changes in address

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Western Title Company's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (#3) is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiffs' failure to inform the court of their current address. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment according.


Summaries of

Ahmad v. Dimartino

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Apr 17, 2009
3:09-cv-00071-LRH-(RAM) (D. Nev. Apr. 17, 2009)
Case details for

Ahmad v. Dimartino

Case Details

Full title:RALPH AHMAD and ASVINDER AHMAD, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES DIMARTINO and WESTERN…

Court:United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Apr 17, 2009

Citations

3:09-cv-00071-LRH-(RAM) (D. Nev. Apr. 17, 2009)