McAlpin Clarke v. Marriott International, Inc.
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 CARMEN McALPIN CLARKE, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:08-cv-86 v. 5 5 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., 5 5 Defendant. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Andrew C. Simpson, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Court’s Order of January 5, 2010 (Docket No. 73). Defendant filed an opposition to said motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply thereto. Being advised in the premises and being satisfied therein, the Court finds that reconsideration is not warranted. Nothing in Plaintiff’s said motion persuades the Court that its previous order(s) require clarification, modification, or reversal. Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, the order(s) at issue did not stay the entire proceeding. The order stayed the deadlines. As stated in the Order (Docket No. 29), entered August 4, 2009, discovery only with respect to the issue(s) of Defendant Marriott International, Inc.’s Case: 1:08-cv-00086-WAL-GWC Document #: 80 Filed: 02/10/10 Page 1 of 2 Clarke v. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_08-cv-00086/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_08-cv-00086-4.pdf
SHA-256 10ef3188dd5d4d85ceceb72efed40494642a7f398b432d8f323cd73fe54f3a60
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-10ef3188dd5d
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 CARMEN McALPIN CLARKE, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:08-cv-86 v. 5 5 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., 5 5 Defendant. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Andrew C. Simpson, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Court’s Order of January 5, 2010 (Docket No. 73). Defendant filed an opposition to said motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply thereto. Being advised in the premises and being satisfied therein, the Court finds that reconsideration is not warranted. Nothing in Plaintiff’s said motion persuades the Court that its previous order(s) require clarification, modification, or reversal. Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, the order(s) at issue did not stay the entire proceeding. The order stayed the deadlines. As stated in the Order (Docket No. 29), entered August 4, 2009, discovery only with respect to the issue(s) of Defendant Marriott International, Inc.’s Case: 1:08-cv-00086-WAL-GWC Document #: 80 Filed: 02/10/10 Page 1 of 2 Clarke v. Marriott International, Inc. 1:08-cv-86 Order liability and/or jurisdiction over said Defendant is closed. In addition, in view of the fact that Plaintiff has not yet served the defendants she added in her First Amended Complaint, any discovery or scheduling deadlines issues Plaintiff may have pertaining to those defendants is premature. Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Court’s Order of January 5, 2010 (Docket No. 73) is DENIED. ENTER: Dated: February 10, 2010 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:08-cv-00086-WAL-GWC Document #: 80 Filed: 02/10/10 Page 2 of 2