Copper Sands Homeowners Association, Inc. et al v. Copper Sands Realty, LLC et al

Filing 880

ORDER re 861 Motion for Attorney Fees. Both parties shall file, no later than May 11, 2016, simultaneous briefing providing a thorough analysis (supported by legal authority) on this issue.1 Those briefs shall be limited to 10 pages in length. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/27/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9

COPPER SANDS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,

10
Plaintiff(s),
11
vs.
12
COPPER SANDS REALTY, LLC, et al.,
13
Defendant(s).
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:10-cv-00510-GMN-NJK
ORDER

15

Pending before the Court is a motion for attorneys’ fees filed by Defendant The Cannon

16

Management Company. Docket No. 861. In responding to that motion, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant

17

is not entitled to any award of attorneys’ fees because, inter alia, the real party in interest is its insurance

18

company and the insurance company previously settled and released all claims against Plaintiff,

19

including those for “attorneys’ fees.” See Docket No 872 at 9-10. Plaintiff provides no legal authority,

20

however, regarding the application of a settlement agreement and release to prohibit a later claim

21

generally, let alone legal authority regarding application of a settlement agreement and release in

22

circumstances analogous to this case. The reply brief is equally lacking in analysis, making bald

23

assertions that the settlement agreement “pertains to unrelated circumstances” and that it is inapplicable

24

because Defendant was not a party to it. See Docket No. 875 at 8. The reply brief also asserts in a single

25

sentence that Plaintiff’s argument has been waived because Plaintiff stated at the trial that the settlement

26

agreement was not relevant to its claim at trial, see id., which the Court is not convinced has any bearing

27

to the current argument that the settlement is relevant to the issue of Defendant’s entitlement to recover

28

attorneys’ fees.

1

In short, the Court finds both parties’ briefing insufficiently developed to determine the impact

2

(if any) of the cited settlement agreement on the pending motion for attorneys’ fees. Accordingly, both

3

parties shall file, no later than May 11, 2016, simultaneous briefing providing a thorough analysis

4

(supported by legal authority) on this issue.1 Those briefs shall be limited to 10 pages in length.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED

6

DATED: April 27, 2016

7
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff also argues relatedly that an award of attorneys’ fees would be improper under the contract
provision cited because the insurance company, rather than Defendant, “incurred” fees. The Court does not
require additional briefing on that argument.
2