Cooper et al v. Clark County Nevada et al

Filing 162

ORDER Granting 148 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 10/6/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5

DAVID COOPER, et al.,

6

Plaintiffs,

7
8

Case No. 2:10-CV-00763-KJD-GWF
v.

CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, et al.,

ORDER

9

Defendants.
10
11
12

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion in Limine #3 Regarding Alleged Events

13

After Denial of Appeal by the Clark County Commission (#148) to which Plaintiffs responded
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

(#158).
I. Analysis
Defendants have moved to exclude evidence based on Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and
402 (relevance) and 403 (unfair prejudice).
Defendants request that this Court preclude Plaintiffs from offering any testimonial or
documentary evidence regarding “any allegations and incidents occurring after September 2,
2008,” the date the Board of County Commissioners voted to deny Plaintiffs’ appeal of the

22
23
24

denial of a business license. (#148).
Plaintiffs allege that the harm they suffered as a result of the denial of this appeal

25

continues past the September 2nd decision. Further, Plaintiffs point to Defendants lack of

26

enforcement against other swinger’s clubs allegedly operating in Clark County. See #158
1

1

(“[T]he [D]efendants continued to harm Plaintiffs because they refuse[d] to take action against

2

other clubs that are operating and they continued to deny Plaintiff[s] the opportunity to operate

3

the club [they] sought to open.”).

4

As previously noted by this Court, Plaintiffs have no evidentiary or legal basis to assert
5
6

an Equal Protection claim based on Defendants’ enforcement (or alleged lack thereof) of the

7

Clark County Code (“Code”) against establishments to which Plaintiffs allege they are similarly

8

situated. Thus, evidence pointing to Defendants’ enforcement of the Code against these

9

businesses is irrelevant. Defendants’ alleged discriminatory intent at the licensing stage

10

(including the appeal) regarding their knowledge of other applicants intending to operate as

11

swinger’s clubs in Clark County is at issue here. Any enforcement of the Code against these

12

clubs that occurred after the denial of the appeal does not make Defendants’ discriminatory

13
14
15
16

intent at the licensing stage more or less probable than it would be without this evidence.
II. Conclusion
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have suffered no more harm than they already allegedly

17

suffered as a result of the denial of the appeal and any evidence pointing to further harm is

18

irrelevant. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion (#148) is Granted.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22

DATED this 6th day of October 2015.

23
24

______________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge

25
26
2