Preiss et al v. S & R Production Company et al

Filing 59

ORDER DENYING Meiers Motion for Stay 53 . Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 4/3/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

***

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

OLIVER PREISS, an individual; and
BEATRICE PREISS, an individual,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
S&R PRODUCTION COMPANY, a Nevada )
Corporation; and ROY HORN AKA UWE
)
LUDWIG HORN AKA ROY UWE HORN, an )
individual; and DOES and ROES 1-100,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

Case No.: 2:10-cv-01795-RLH-RJJ
ORDER
(Motion for Stay–#53)

18
19

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Attorney Mike Meier’s Motion for Stay (#53, filed

20

Mar. 9, 2012) of the sanction award against him and his co-counsel Sharon Nelson. The Court has

21

also considered Defendants S&R Production and Roy Horn’s Opposition (#55, filed Mar. 26), and

22

Meier’s Reply (#58, filed Apr. 1).

23

On September 21, 2011, the Court sanctioned Plaintiffs’ counsel Mike Meier and

24

Sharon Nelson under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. (Dkt. #45.) Since then, Meier and Nelson have appealed

25

that order and the Court’s order dismissing this case. Meier now seeks a stay of Defendants’

26

efforts to enforce the judgment. Meier bases his request on a “recently discovered letter” from

AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

1

1

counsel for Defendants (Marvin Putnam) to Nelson. Meier requests that this Court grant a stay

2

pending resolution Plaintiff Oliver Preiss’ bar complaint against Putnam or until after limited

3

discovery regarding communications between Nelson and Putnam.

4

The Court denies the motion. The Nevada State Bar dismissed Preiss’ grievance

5

against Putnam within weeks of receiving it. (Dkt. #58, Reply Ex. 1, Letter from Asst. Bar

6

Counsel Phillip J. Pattee to Oliver Priess.) Therefore, the grievance has been resolved. Further,

7

the Court refuses to allow discovery into this matter through its own procedures. Accordingly,

8

rather than having Meier withdraw the motion as he claimed he would do if the Court denied the

9

requested discovery, the Court simply denies the motion.

10

CONCLUSION

11

Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Meier’s Motion for Stay (#53) is DENIED.

13

Dated: April 2, 2012.

14
15

____________________________________
ROGER L. HUNT
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

2