Gibson v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 137

ORDER Denying 124 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 128 Defendant Michael Hnatuick's Motion for Sanctions and 130 Defendant David Dockendorf's Motion for Sanctions are DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 1/14/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

CELESTINE GIBSON,
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
)
DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the )
State of Nevada; OFFICER JESUS
)
AREVALO, individually; SERGEANT
)
MICHAEL HNATUICK, individually; and
)
LIEUTENANT DAVID DOCKENDORF,
)
individually,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 2:12-cv-00900-GMN-CWH
ORDER

13

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Strike (ECF No. 124) filed by Plaintiff

14

Celestine Gibson (“Plaintiff”). Also pending before the Court is the Motion for Sanctions filed

15

by Defendant Michael Hnatuick (ECF No. 128) and the Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 130)

16

filed by Defendant David Dockendorf.

17

I.

18

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
In her motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court strike three of the four pending motions

19

for summary judgment due to an asserted failure to abide by the page limitations set forth in

20

Local Rule 7-4. Rule 7-4 of the Local Rules of Practice for the District of Nevada requires that

21

all “pretrial and post-trial briefs and points and authorities in support of, or in response to,

22

motions shall be limited to thirty (30) pages including the motion but excluding exhibits.” D.

23

Nev. LR 7-4. Therefore, any pages of a motion dedicated to a table of contents, table of

24

authorities, or certificates of service are also not included in this page count.

25

In her motion, Plaintiff asserts that the Motions for Summary Judgment by Defendant
Jesus L. Arevalo (ECF No. 120), Defendant David Dockendorf (ECF No. 122), and Defendant
Page 1 of 2

1

Michael Hnatuick (ECF No. 123) each exceed the page limit. However, contrary to Plaintif’s

2

assertions, only Defendant Arevalo’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 120) actually

3

exceeds the page limit. The remaining two motions comply with the local rules because the

4

points and authorities in support of each motion end on the thirtieth page. Therefore, the Court

5

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike as it relates to the Motions for Summary Judgment filed

6

by Defendants Dockendorf Hnatuick. In addition, given that the Court previously granted

7

Defendant Arevalo’s Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, (ECF No. 124), the Court finds

8

that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike as it relates to Defendant Arevalo’s Motion is MOOT.

9

II.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS
The Court has inherent authority to impose sanctions, “including attorneys’ fees, . . .

10
11

‘when the losing party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive

12

reasons . . ..’” Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Roadway Express,

13

Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766 (1980)). However, having reviewed the Motions filed by

14

Defendant Hnatuick (ECF No. 128) and Defendant Dockendorf (ECF No. 130), the Court finds

15

that sanctions are not warranted in this instance.

16

III.

17
18

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 124) is

DENIED.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Michael Hnatuick’s Motion for

20

Sanctions (ECF No. 128) and Defendant David Dockendorf’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No.

21

130) are DENIED.

22

January
14
DATED this _____ day of _____________, 2014.

23
24
25

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge
Page 2 of 2