Britain et al v. Clark County, Nevada

Filing 153

ORDER Granting in part 151 First Motion For Clarification. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/29/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DL)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
TRINA BRITAIN, et al.,

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16

There is a dispute in this case over which attorneys represent various Plaintiffs. See, e.g.,

17

Docket No. 147. The Court issued an order in pertinent part explaining that: (1) attorneys Adam

18

Levine and Daniel Marks have been appointed as interim class counsel and are currently the

19

attorneys of record and, (2) to the extent any plaintiffs or other attorneys wish to change the status

20

quo, they must file an appropriate request for relief (including a request for substitution counsel) by

21

September 30, 2016. Id.

11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA,
14
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:12-cv-01240-JAD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 151)

22

Now pending before the Court is a motion for clarification as to whether the Court is

23

requiring the filing of “stipulations” for substitution signed by all counsel. See Docket No. 151.1

24
25
26
27
28

1

Mr. Levine and Mr. Marks now opine that a stipulation for substitution would be improper,
see Docket No. 151 at 3, but they previously complained that “no substitution of counsel forms have
ever been presented for signature by the Law Office of Daniel Marks” with respect to the named
plaintiffs. Docket No. 145 at 3. They also acknowledged that these plaintiffs have the “right” to
drop them as their counsel. See id. As such, it does not appear there is any dispute that various
plaintiffs can decide they do not want to be represented by Mr. Marks and Mr. Levine. The dispute
appears to be limited to the consequences of that action.

1

To avoid any confusion moving forward, the Court will modify its order as follows. At this time,

2

attorneys Adam Levine and Daniel Marks have been appointed as interim class counsel and are the

3

attorneys of record. To the extent any plaintiffs or any attorneys wish to change the status quo, they

4

must file, by October 6, 2016, a motion or motions clearly indicating the relief they seek (e.g., to

5

substitute new counsel, to have different attorneys appointed as class counsel, to be relieved of their

6

duties as a representative plaintiffs, etc.). The motion(s) shall be supported properly by points and

7

authorities. Mr. Levine and Mr. Marks shall then respond to the motion or motions, and may also

8

file any appropriate counter-motions.2 The motions shall be briefed according to the default schedule

9

in Local Rule 7-2.

10

The motion for clarification is therefore GRANTED in part.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: September 29, 2016

13
14
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2

28

Defendant is also permitted to respond to any motion or counter-motion as it deems
appropriate.
-2-