Next U.S. Insurance Company, et al. v. Nathan Edouard, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7, Next U.S. Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01909-GMN-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9] v. [Docket No. 32] 10] Nathan Edouard, et al., 11 Defendant(s).

12 Pending before the Court is Defendant Edouard’s motion for leave to file a third-party 13] complaint. Docket No. 32.' Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition arguing that Edouard failed 14]| to comply with the local rules, including that Edouard did not attach the proposed pleading to the 15] motion. Docket No. 37 (discussing Local Rule 15-1(a)). Edouard thereafter filed a supplement 16]| with a proposed third-party complaint. Docket No. 41. The Court declines to consider a proposed 17] third-party complaint filed for the first time after the opposition papers were filed. Cf Zamani v. 18] Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The district court need not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief’). Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice the motion 20|| for leave to file a third-party complaint.

21 IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 Dated: January 15, 2026 Nancy J. Koppe: 24 United States Magistrate Judge ' The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).