John Meggs, et al. v. Chetak Development

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 5 John Meggs, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00483-NJK 6 Plaintiffs, ORDER 7 v. [Docket No. 9] 8 Chetak Development, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Docket No. 9. The Court has 12 considered Defendant’s motion, Plaintiffs’ response, and Defendant’s reply. Docket Nos. 9, 15, 13 16. The parties have consented to the undersigned magistrate judge presiding over this case. See 14 Docket; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. The motion to dismiss is properly resolved without a hearing. 15 See Local Rule 78-1. 16…