v. Las Vegas Paving Corporation

Filing 128

ORDER that the Motion for Enforcement of this Courts 1/6/10 Order and for Appropriate Sanctions 117 is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 8/24/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO., 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. 11 CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA et al., 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This case arises out of the Clark County Board of County Commissioners' ("the Board") rejection of Plaintiff Fisher Sand & Gravel Co.'s ("Fisher") bid on Bid No. 601309-08. That bid is for improvements to a segment of Interstate 215 that surrounds the City of Las Vegas, known as the Bruce Woodbury Beltway. On January 6, 2010, the Court granted in part Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Enforcement of Writ of Mandamus and Request for Sanctions, ordering the Board to award the bid to Fisher. (See Order, Jan. 6, 2010, ECF No. 88). The Court of Appeals has stayed that order pending resolution of the appeal. (See Order, May 20, 2010, ECF No. 127). In the meantime, Fisher had moved for enforcement of the now-stayed order. (See Mot., Feb. 23, 2010, ECF No. 117). /// /// Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2:09-cv-01372-RCJ-GWF ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Because the Court cannot enforce an order that the Court of Appeals has stayed, the motion is denied, without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew the motion after the appeal is resolved, assuming the Court of Appeals does not vacate the order. CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Enforcement of this Court's January 6, 2010 Order and for Appropriate Sanctions (ECF No. 117) is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: This 24th day of August, 2010. ___________________________________ ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge Page 2 of 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?