Britain et al v. Clark County, Nevada

Filing 213

ORDER re 203 Motion to Enforce Settlement. Defendant is hereby ORDERED to file, no later than 8/11/2017, a declaration stating unequivocally that the Board has either rejected or accepted the settlement terms. In the event the Board rejected the settlement, Defendant is further ORDERED to file, no later than 8/11/2017, (1) a declaration as to whether its counsel affirmatively recommended that the Board accept the settlement and (2) a response to Plaintiffs contention that an open session discussion was required. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 7/21/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
TRINA BRITAIN, et al.,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA,
14
Defendant(s).
15
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01240-JAD-NJK
ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce a settlement agreement. Docket No.
203. Defendant filed a response and Plaintiffs filed replies. Docket Nos. 209, 211-12.1

18

The briefing suffers from several threshold problems. First, Defendant’s brief contends that “the

19

Board of County Commissioners for Clark County did not approve the settlement.” Docket No. 209 at

20

3. The evidentiary support submitted with the motion is equivocal, however. See Docket No. 209-1 at

21

¶ 5 (“It is my understanding that the Board of County Commissioners will not approve the settlement

22

at this time”); Docket No. 209-2 at ¶ 19 (“I do not believe the Board of County Commissioners will

23

agree to finalize the settlement . . .”). These declarations are not sufficient. To the extent the Board has

24

rejected the terms of settlement, a declaration so stating must be filed.

25

Second, when the Court excuses government officials with ultimate decision-making authority

26

from personally attending a settlement conference, it does so based on the requirement that the

27
28
1

The Court expresses no opinion herein as to the ultimate merits of the pending motion.

1

representatives who do attend will submit a “recommendation” to those officials that agreed upon

2

settlement terms be accepted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, Advisory Committee Notes (1993); see also

3

Docket No. 52. Indeed, defense counsel expressly agreed to “recommend” that the Board adopt the

4

settlement terms reached at the settlement conference. See Docket No. 201 at 6. The declaration

5

submitted in responding to the pending motion fails to state that such an affirmative recommendation

6

was made, however, asserting only that counsel “met with the Board . . . to present the terms” of the

7

settlement. See Docket No. 209-1 at ¶ 4. Such a statement is insufficient to show that counsel fulfilled

8

his obligations as represented to the Court to affirmatively recommend accepting the settlement terms

9

reached.2

10

Third, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant agreed to address the settlement terms in open session.

11

See Docket No. 203 at 3; see also Docket No. 211 at 2; Docket No. 212 at 4-5. Defendant’s counsel,

12

however, addressed the issue with the Board in closed session. See Docket No. 209-1 at ¶ 4. Defendant

13

shall respond to Plaintiffs’ contention that an open session discussion was required.

14

Defendant is hereby ORDERED to file, no later than August 11, 2017, a declaration stating

15

unequivocally that the Board has either rejected or accepted the settlement terms. In the event the Board

16

rejected the settlement, Defendant is further ORDERED to file, no later than August 11, 2017, (1) a

17

declaration as to whether its counsel affirmatively recommended that the Board accept the settlement

18

and (2) a response to Plaintiffs’ contention that an open session discussion was required.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED: July 21, 2017

21

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Based on such an understanding, the parties and the Court expended their resources preparing for
and participating in more than 17 hours of settlement conferences in this case. Docket No. 55 (minutes of
proceedings of first settlement conference lasting nearly four hours); Docket No. 61 (minutes of proceedings
of second settlement conference lasting more than four hours); Docket No. 200 (minutes of proceedings of
third settlement conference lasting more than nine hours); see also Docket Nos. 50, 51, 53, 59, 60, 62, 65,
67, 83, 189, 192, 194, 198, 199, 202, 204, 205, 207 (hearings and orders addressing issues related to
settlement conferences).
2