Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Las Vegas Township Constables Office et al

Filing 91

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 81 Motion for Magistrate Judge to Reconsider 71 Order to Show Cause. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Pool must pay Travelers travel costs in the amount of $615.40, and fee of $780.00 for co unsels time spent attending the settlement conference, and defendants Palazzo and Becketts fee of $760.00 for attending the settlement conference. The sanctions in the form of $300 to each lawyer who appeared at the 7/30/2013, must be paid by Mr. Pool. Defendant Constable Bonaventuras 88 Ex Parte Motion to File Late Pleading is GRANTED. Settlement Conference is set for 11/12/2013 10:00 AM in LV Chambers before Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 08/29/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
***

4
5

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

6
7

v.

8

LAS VEGAS TOWNSHIP CONSTABLES
OFFICE, et al.,

9
Defendant.

10

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-01922-JCM-VCF
ORDER
(Pending Matters #71, #77, #79, #80, #81,
#82, #87 and #88)

11
On August 26, 2013, a hearing was held to address various issues arising out of the July 23,
12
2013, settlement conference and ensuing motion practice. Before the court are:
13
1.

Reconsideration of Defendant Constable Bonaventura's Motion to Correct Minutes of

14
Proceedings (#64) (#81);
15
2.

Reconsideration of Stephens Media LLC's Emergency Application to Intervene and

16
Unseal Hearing (#66) (#81);
17
3.

Reconsideration of Defendant Constable Bonaventura's Motion for To Reset Hearing

18
On Defendant John Bonaventura's Motion to Correct Minutes of Proceedings (#67) (#81);
19
4.

Defendants Palazzo and Beckett's Memorandum of Costs and Attorneys' Fees (#77);

5.

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America's Response to Order and Order to

20
21
Show Cause (#79);
22
6.

Defendant Constable Bonaventura's Response to Order to Show Cause (#80)1;

7.

Defendant Constable Bonaventura's Objections to Order (#71), which the Court treats

23
24
25
1

26

Plaintiff filed a Response (#83) and Defendants Clark County and the Las Vegas Township Constables Office
filed a Joinder in Plaintiff's Response (#85).

1
2

as a Motion for Reconsideration (#81)(#82)2;
8.

Defendant John Bonaventura's Consolidated Response and Reply to Order to Show

3

Cause and Responses to Order and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Objections to Order

4

(#87); and

5
6

9.

Defendant John Bonaventura's Ex-Parte Motion to File Late Pleading (#88).

Discussion

7

The court held a hearing on August 26, 2013. (#90). Having reviewed the parties' filings and

8

considered argument and representations made during the hearing of these matters, and good cause

9

appearing, the court rules as follows3:

10

A.

11

The Minute Order entered in this case on August 19, 2013 (#82), advised counsel for Constable

12

Bonaventura that his October 14th filings, styled a “Response and LR IB 3-1 & 3-2 Objections to Order

13

(#71) to Show Cause” (#s 80 & 81) violated Section III (F)(4) for the court's electronic filing

14

procedures, which provides:

15
16
17

Ex-Parte Motion to File Late Pleading (#88).

4. Document Type
A separate document must be filed for each type of document or purpose. Examples:
separate documents must be filed for response and motion rather than a response and
counter motion in one document. Motions may ask for only one type of unrelated relief
thus, rather than filing a motion to severe and to dismiss, a separate motion to severe and
a separate motion to dismiss must be filed.

18
The document (#87) which is the subject of this ex-parte motion (#88) again violates this
19
section. The motion is styled: "Consolidated Response and Reply to Order (#71) to show cause and
20
Responses (#'s 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 79, 82, 83, 84, 84, 86) to order (#71) and Defendant's Motion for
21
Summary Judgment (#62) and Objections (#82)." The ex parte motion (#88) itself also violates this
22
23
24

2

Plaintiff filed a Response (#84) and Defendants Clark County and the Las Vegas Township Constables Office
filed a Joinder in Plaintiff's Response (#86).
3

25
26

The relevant background of this action is recited in the court’s August 1, 2013, Order and Order to Show
Cause (#71).

2

1

court’s rules. Local Rule 7-5 (b) provides that “[a]ll ex parte motions, applications or requests shall

2

contain a statement showing good cause why the matter was submitted to the Court without notice to

3

all parties,” and 7-5(c) provides that “[m]otions, applications or requests may be submitted ex parte

4

only for compelling reasons, and not for unopposed or emergency motions.” Constable Bonaventura’s

5

ex parte motion (#88) does not contain a such a statement demonstrating “good cause” or “compelling

6

reasons.”

7

Counsel for Constable Bonaventura reports that problems with the Court's electronic filing

8

system prevented the timely filing of this document (#87). (#88). He seeks leave to file the document

9

(#87) one day late. Id. During the hearing, the court asked counsel for Constable Bonaventura the basis

10

for filing the ex parte motion (#88), and he replied that he did so because he wanted to get the motion

11

filed quickly. (#90). The Ex-Parte Motion to File Late Pleading (#88) is GRANTED. However,

12

counsel for Constable Bonaventura is warned that if he files another document in violation of Section

13

III (F)(4) or in violation of LR 7-5(b) or (c), the document will be stricken and not considered by the

14

court.

16

Reconsideration of Defendant Bonaventura's Motion for To Reset Hearing On
Defendant John Bonaventura's Motion to Correct Minutes of Proceedings (#67)
(#81).4

17

In the Motion to Reset Hearing (#67), Defendant Constable Bonaventure stated that he and his

18

counsel were not present at the hearing "through inadvertence and lack of receipt of the notice." The

19

electronic filing records of this court show that the order setting this hearing was sent via e-mail to the

20

parties twice; once at 19:28:22 and then again at 19:32:45, because the clerk changed the title of the

15

B.

21
4

22
23
24
25
26

Docket Entries Numbered 80, 81 and 87 are, in essence three drafts of the same document. Documents #80
and #81 are virtually identical. The sentence appearing at page 5, line 16 of both documents was changed from, "The
Order (#65) was not received by counsel due to an error on the docket reflecting the wrong contact information." to
"The Order (#65) was not received by counsel within those two judicial days." (#80 and #81)(emphasis added). In
document #87, which was filed after Travelers' Response, the line was changed to read, "The Order (#65) was not
received by attorney Pool within those two judicial days." (Emphasis added). A number of additional arguments are
added or modified in document #87. In analyzing Defendant Bonaventura's position on the various issues, the court is
relying primarily on the final version of this pleading (#87).

3

1

order. During the hearing, Mr. Pool was given an opportunity to explain what he meant by "lack of

2

receipt of notice," as stated in his motion (#67). He explained that the court’s order (#65) was delivered

3

to his email address, and that he eventually found it after the hearing. (#90).

4

In its Response (#84) to Defendant Bonaventura's arguments in this regard, Travelers submitted

5

an affidavit by Justin Hepworth (#84-1 Exhibit #1) and an email (#84-1 Exhibit 2) which show that on

6

Friday, July 26, 2013, Mr. Hepworth advised someone in counsel for Constable Bonaventura’s office

7

of the existence of Minute Order (#65) setting a hearing four days later on July 30, 2013. That same

8

day, James Kimsey, the legal assistant who appeared at the settlement conference with Defendant

9

Bonaventure and Mr. Pool, sent Mr. Hepworth, and other counsel of record, an e-mail forwarding the

10

Motion to Correct Minutes and acknowledging that Mr. Pool had been informed of the court's order.

11

(#84-2 Exhibit 2). That e-mail bears Mr. Pool's electronic signature. Id.

12

During the hearing, the court questioned counsel for Constable Bonaventura regarding this

13

communication. (#90). Counsel explained that whoever spoke with Mr. Hepworth on the phone

14

regarding the court’s order (#65) did not inform counsel of the hearing. Id. Counsel also stated that

15

he saw the email from Mr. Hepworth, but that he forwarded it on to Mr. Kimsey and did not notice the

16

mention that an order had been entered. Id.

17

The record establishes unambiguously that (1) the order (#65) setting the July 30, 2013, hearing

18

was delivered to Mr. Pool’s email address on file with the court’s CM/ECF system, (2) Mr. Pool

19

received an email from opposing counsel on July 26, 2013, advising him of the entry of the court’s

20

order (#65), and (3) Mr. Pool did not read the court’s order (#65) until after the July 30, 2013, hearing.

21

Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Denial of his Motion to Correct Minutes

22

(#81) is DENIED without prejudice to his right to object to the original ruling by a timely objection to

23

this order.

24

...

25

...

26

4

1

C.

Reconsideration of Stephens Media LLC's Emergency Application to Intervene
and Unseal Hearing (#66) (#81).

2
The only authority cited by Defendant Constable Bonaventure regarding the Court's decision
3
to allow Stephens Media to intervene and grant it's motion to unseal is “Apple Inc. v. Samsung, Case
4
11-cv-1846-LHK (ND Cal 2012).” (#81). Defendant Constable Bonaventura does not point the court
5
to a specific decision in that matter that supports his position, but states that “presently pending final
6
decision in the district courts and the Federal Circuit, is a legally similar case with a stay issued on an
7
order to unseal documents in the matter of Apple Inc. v. Samsung, Case 11-cv-1846-LHK (ND Cal
8
2012) prohibiting a disinterested third party from seeking to intervene and unsealing records pertaining
9
to the case. The fees sought by the third party were denied at the district court level.” Id.
10
That action involves the manufacturer of a cellular telephone and computer tablets bringing
11
allegations of patent infringement against its competitor, and the parties moved for an order to seal
12
documents filed by litigants and several third parties. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
13
11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 3283478 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012) rev'd and remanded, 2012-1600, 2013
14
WL 4487610 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2013). With regard to an intervenor and sealing documents, the
15
court’s August 9, 2012, order stated that since the intervenor Reuters’ motion to intervene had been
16
granted, Reuters was subject to the protective order in place and could not disclose confidential
17
information. Id at *12. The court denied several motions to seal, and granted a request to stay the
18
ruling on the motions pending appeal.

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,

19
11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 3536800 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2012). The appellate court issued an order
20
on August 23, 2013, holding that the “district court abused its discretion in refusing to seal parties'
21
confidential financial information; and [that the] district court abused its discretion in refusing to seal
22
manufacturer's market reports.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 2012-1600, 2013 WL
23
4487610 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2013).
24
The action before this court is not “legally similar” to the Apple Inc. action. The order allowing
25
26

5

1

Stephens Media to intervene and to unseal (1) the filed document and (2) the hearing on the motion to

2

correct minutes (#71) is supported by the authorities cited by Stephens Media in its filing (#66) and

3

by the court therein (#71). Not only was it improper for Defendant Bonaventure to file his motion (#64)

4

under seal, he also failed to follow the proper procedure for filing such a motion and did not file a

5

motion for leave to file the motion under seal. See LR 10-5. When an attorney fails to follow the

6

court's rules, causing others to incur unnecessary legal expenses, sanctions are appropriate. See LR IA

7

4-1 (“The Court may, after notice and opportunity to be heard, impose any and all appropriate sanctions

8

on an attorney or party appearing in pro se who, without just cause:...(c) Fails to comply with these

9

Rules;...”). Attorneys admitted to this court are obligated to follow our local rules. See LR IA 2-1.

10

Attorneys are responsible for the consequences of their failure to follow our rules.

11

In his papers, counsel for Constable Bonaventure suggests that the Court must give him advance

12

warning of rule requirements before it can enforce those rules. (#81). The Local Rules of this court

13

apply to all actions and proceedings before this court, both criminal and civil. See LR IA 2-1. As an

14

attorney practicing in this court, counsel is required to be familiar with this court’s rules and comply

15

with the rules. Local Rule IA 4-1 that permits the court to sanction an attorney or party for failure to

16

comply with the rules of this court, an order of the court, appear at a conference, argument on a motion

17

or trial, or prepare for a presentation to the court, requires that the court provide notice and an

18

opportunity to be heard before entering such a sanction. LR IA 4-1. The court here provided notice

19

to Constable Bonaventura and his counsel in the July 26, 2013, minute order setting the hearing (#65),

20

and provided Constable Bonaventura and his counsel the opportunity to be heard at the July 30, 2013,

21

hearing on the matter (#68). Constable Bonaventura and his counsel failed to appear. Id. The court,

22

thereafter, properly issued the order and order to show cause. (#71).

23

In this action, the court and other parties have had to endure multiple rule violations by counsel

24

for Constable Bonaventura. This $400 sanction makes the point that counsel for Constable Bonaventura

25

must fulfill his obligations as an officer of the court. Based on the undersigned Magistrate Judge's

26

6

1

experience litigating cases in this court for a number of years, the $400 sanction is an extremely low

2

estimate of the costs and fees incurred for the preparation and filing of the Emergency Application to

3

Intervene and Unseal Hearing (#66), as well as appearing at the hearing (#68). Defendant Constable

4

Bonaventura’s requests for reconsideration (#81) are DENIED without prejudice, to Constable

5

Bonaventura's right to object to the original ruling (#71) by a timely objection to this order.

6

D.

Reconsideration of Defendant Bonaventura's Motion to Correct Minutes of
Proceedings (#64) (#81).

7
In his most recent filing addressing facts at issue in the Motion to Correct Minutes, Constable
8
Bonaventura asserts that "lack of clear instructions, along with some inexperience on the part of
9
Defendant Bonaventura and attorney Pool, resulting in confusion and miscommunication" caused the
10
Constable and his litigation team to terminate the settlement conference by walking out of Courtroom
11
3D. (#87, at p. 8). In this same document, Constable Bonaventura states that on April 22, 2013, three
12
(3) months prior to July 23, 2013. [sic] Defendants reversed their position (#46, #56) and questioned
13
the propriety of non-opposition and settlement. (#87, at p. 12)(emphasis in original).
14
At the beginning of the settlement conference, the undersigned Magistrate Judge was not aware
15
of this reversal of position. In fact, during an introductory meeting attended by all the counsel and their
16
clients, the undersigned stated the understanding that all parties had stipulated to the settlement
17
conference. No one corrected that statement.
18
Given the admitted inexperience of Constable Bonaventura and his counsel, and also taking into
19
consideration their reversal of position regarding participation in the settlement conference, it is
20
conceivable that Constable Bonaventura's unilateral termination of the settlement conference was based
21
on a belief that they were free to leave a court ordered settlement conference, without first checking
22
with the settlement judge. A reasonably competent attorney representing a litigant in this court under
23
these circumstances, however, would have certainly first called the chambers phone number, as
24
directed, and requested permission to leave.
25
26

7

1

Constable Bonaventura did not have permission to leave. Nowhere in his papers does Constable

2

Bonaventura claim that the undersigned Magistrate Judge told him he could leave the settlement

3

conference. Nothing before the court on this motion for reconsideration (#81) contradicts this sentence

4

in Minute Order (#63), "Defendant John Bonaventura unilaterally terminated the settlement conference

5

by leaving the courthouse without permission." This Motion for Reconsideration (#64) (#81) is

6

DENIED without prejudice, to Constable Bonaventura's right to object to the original ruling (#71) by

7

a timely objection to this order.

8

E.

Reconsideration of Order Correcting Docket to Reflect Attorney Appearances
(#81, Section II F.)

9
On reviewing Constable Bonaventura's Motion to Correct Minutes of Proceedings (#64), the
10
court noted inconsistencies throughout the docket regarding attorney appearances and the clients they
11
represent. On pages 9 and 10 of the Order and Order to Show Cause, based on the first appearances
12
contained in Clark County and the Constables Office's answer (#18) and Constable Bonaventura's
13
answer (#22), the court ruled that Stephanie A. Barker and Robert J. Gower represent the Las Vegas
14
Township Constable's Office. (#71).
15
Local Rule IA 10-6 governs Appearances, Substitutions and Withdrawals of attorneys appearing
16
in this court. No attorney can withdraw without leave of court. See LR IA 10-6(b). Any stipulation
17
or motion to substitute attorneys must be by leave of court. See LR IA 10-6(c). Arguments advanced
18
by Constable Bonaventure regarding the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct and Nixon v. General
19
Services Administration (#87, at pp. 15 & 16) are irrelevant. Absent a stipulation or court order, the
20
appearances stand as originally created in the parties orders. See LR 10-6(b) and (c). The Motion for
21
Reconsideration of Directions to the Clerk to correct errors in the docket regarding which parties the
22
attorneys of record currently represent (#81) is DENIED without prejudice, to Constable Bonaventura's
23
right to object to the original ruling (#71) by a timely objection to this order. This denial is also without
24
prejudice to any subsequent motion to with draw or substitute attorneys in accordance with LR IA 10-6.
25
26

8

1

F.

Sanctions
1.

2

Rule 11 Violation

3

Defendant Constable Bonaventura asserted in his motion to amend/correct minutes that “[t]he

4

other parties to this proceeding, not the instant Defendants, requested a Settlement conference, which

5

was directed to occur on July 23, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.” (#64). As established by the court’s order and

6

order to show cause (#71), this statement is not supported by the record. This is a clear violation of

7

Rule 11. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) (“By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other

8

paper--whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it--an attorney or unrepresented party

9

certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry

10

reasonable under the circumstances: (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if

11

specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further

12

investigation or discovery...”).

13

In the most recent filing, defendant Constable Bonaventura clarified that “[o]n April 22, 2013,

14

three (3) months prior to July 23, 2013. [sic] Defendants reversed their position (#46, #56) and

15

questioned the propriety of non-opposition and settlement,” and that the court subsequently scheduled

16

the settlement conference. (#87). Defendant Constable Bonaventura’s counsel also stated the belief

17

that the filing of the summary judgment motion (#62) made it clear that Constable Bonaventura had no

18

intent to settle. The court admonishes counsel to be more careful and precise in presenting arguments

19

to the court, as to not mislead the parties or the court. No other sanction will be imposed for the Rule

20

11 violation.

21

2.

Unilateral Termination of Settlement Conference

22

Defendant Constable Bonaventura’s counsel stated during the hearing that in hindsight he

23

should have called the undersigned’s chambers before leaving the settlement conference. (#90). Based

24

on the record before the court, the court finds that the other parties to this action are entitled to

25

reimbursement for traveling to and the time spent at the July 23, 2013, settlement conference. The time

26

9

1

preparing for the settlement conference is not recoverable, as the preparation is not futile in light of the

2

court rescheduling the settlement conference.

3

Travelers represents to the court that it incurred travel costs in the amount of $615.40 for its

4

representative, Michael Kahn, attending the settlement conference, and it incurred a fee of $780.00 for

5

counsel’s time spent attending the settlement conference (#79 and #79-3). Defendants Palazzo and

6

Beckett represent to the court that they incurred a fee of $760.00 for their counsel’s time spent attending

7

the settlement conference. (#77). The payment of these fees and costs must be paid by counsel Pool

8

personally and may not be paid by any funds of the Constable's Office. Constable Bonaventura may

9

reimburse any funds out of his personal money and not that of the Constable's Office.

10

3.

Taking Photographs in Courtroom 3D

11

Defendant Constable Bonaventura’s counsel stated during the hearing that they meant no

12

disrespect by taking photographs of the courtroom, and that it was their understanding that photographs

13

are not permitted during a hearing, but that photographs are permitted while court is not in session.

14

(#90). Constable Bonaventura and his counsel are admonished that LR IA 9-1(c) forbids the use of

15

recording devices in the courtroom at all times and provides for forfeiture of devices, and that this rule

16

will be enforced in the future.

17

4.

Failure to appear on July 30, 2013

18

Defendant Constable Bonaventura’s counsel stated during the hearing that he eventually

19

discovered the email regarding the court’s order scheduling the hearing (#65), and that he and Constable

20

Bonaventura meant no disrespect to the court by not appearing at the hearing. (#90). Defendant

21

Constable Bonaventura and his counsel’s failure to appear at the hearing unnecessarily multiplied the

22

pleadings, hearings, and proceedings in this matter. Counsel for Constable Bonaventura is admonished

23

that Special Order 109 places a duty on attorneys appearing in this court to provide the court with the

24

appropriate contact information and to be responsible for checking the email address for court filings.

25

The court finds that sanctions in the form of $300 to each lawyer who appeared at the July 30, 2013,

26

10

1

hearing is appropriate. The sanction may not be paid by any fund of the Constable’s Office, and must

2

be paid by counsel Pool personally. Constable Bonaventura may reimburse any funds out of his

3

personal money and not that of the Constable’s Office.

4

G.

Objection to Re-characterization of Objection (#81) as a Motion for
Reconsideration

5
During the hearing on this matter, counsel for Constable Bonaventura withdrew the objection
6
to the court’s characterization of the objection (#81) as a motion for reconsideration (#82). (#90).
7
H.

Recusal

8
Constable Bonaventura asks the undersigned to recuse himself from the instant action, and cites
9
Peterson et al v. Miranda et al (Case No 2:11-cv-01919-LRH-PAL)(Order #178) in support of this
10
position. In Peterson, the District Judge held that Magistrate Judge Koppe should have recused herself
11
because of her “long-standing and deeply personal involvement in the Hart matter,” and that “the
12
related actions taken by BCK in questioning then AUSA Koppe’s involvement in and/or possible
13
responsibility for the U.S. Marshal’s interrogation of Hart at the Clark County Detention Center in
14
violation of Hart’s constitutional due process rights, would cause a reasonable person with knowledge
15
of all the facts to have doubts about Magistrate Judge Koppe’s impartiality in this action.” Id. The
16
court found that the Judge’s interactions with plaintiff’s counsel’s firm, BCK, was “long and complex,”
17
and recited the facts as follows: (1) “At one time, BCK was counsel for Russell Hart (“Hart”), a former
18
next door neighbor of Magistrate Judge Koppe who was charged with assaulting and stalking
19
Magistrate Judge Koppe and her husband,” (2) “BCK was also counsel for Hart in a related civil action
20
wherein the Koppes sought monetary damages based on multiple claims related to the alleged stalking
21
and harassment activities,” (3) “In that civil action, BCK sought to discredit the testimony of Magistrate
22
Judge Koppe and her husband by showing that they were the aggressors and instigators of the improper
23
conduct, not Hart,” and (4) “Finally, after Hart’s conviction, BCK initiated several verbal and written
24
complaints to multiple government agencies seeking an investigation into the improper conduct by both
25
26

11

1

the United States’ Marshall’s Office and then Assistant United States Attorney Koppe in interviewing

2

Hart while he was incarcerated in violation of his constitutional rights.” Id.

3

The undersigned has no such prior interactions or personal negative history with either

4

Constable Bonaventura or his counsel. To the contrary, the undersigned is a neutral judicial officer who

5

conducted a unsuccessful settlement conference with the parties that lasted for one and a half hours and

6

ended with defendant Constable Bonaventura and his counsel leaving without resolution of the

7

settlement conference. (#63). As the court held in Black v. Kendig, where “settlement discussions

8

begin with the defendant offering “nuisance value” and the plaintiff walking out five minutes later in

9

a huff,” “[t]o preclude the magistrate judge who presides over such theatrics from then doing anything

10

else in the case is to waste a judicial resource as badly as cutting one’s throat on a good rug.” 227

11

F.Supp.2d 153, 155 (D. D. C. 2002). The request for the undersigned to recuse from the instant action

12

(#81) is denied.

13

I.

14

During the hearing, the undersigned discussed reconvening the settlement conference with the

15

parties in this action. (#90). The parties agreed to participate in a settlement conference on November

16

12, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. Id. Defendant Constable Bonaventura’s counsel stated during the hearing that

17

they “did come to the [July 23rd] settlement conference with an open mind that [they] could possibly

18

settle,” and that they were “willing to entertain what [they] consider any reasonable offer to settle this”

19

and the other action. Id. Defendant Constable Bonaventura, his counsel, and defendants Daniel F.

20

Palazzo and Timothy Michael Beckett and their counsel, are required to appear in person for the

21

November 12, 2013, settlement conference. Plaintiff Travelers Property Casualty Company of America

22

and defendants Clark County, Nevada and Las Vegas Township Constables Office must be available

23

by telephone. Counsel for plaintiff Travelers Property Casualty Company of America and defendants

24

Clark County, Nevada and Las Vegas Township Constables Office must also be available to come to

25

the courthouse to sign settlement documents should the parties reach a settlement.

26

Set Settlement Conference

12

1

Accordingly, and for good cause shown,

2

IT IS ORDERED that defendant Constable Bonaventura’s Motion for Magistrate Judge to

3

Reconsider (#71) Order to Show Cause (#81) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as discussed

4

above.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as discussed above, Mr. Pool must pay Travelers’ travel costs

6

in the amount of $615.40, and fee of $780.00 for counsel’s time spent attending the settlement

7

conference, and defendants Palazzo and Beckett’s fee of $760.00 for attending the settlement

8

conference. The payments must be paid by counsel Pool personally and may not be paid by any funds

9

of the Constable's Office. Constable Bonaventura may reimburse any funds out of his personal money

10

and not that of the Constable's Office. After the November 12, 2013, settlement conference, the court

11

will enter an order setting a deadline for completion of these payments.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the sanctions in the form of $300 to each lawyer who

13

appeared at the July 30, 2013, must be paid by Mr. Pool. The payment may not be paid by any fund

14

of the Constable’s Office, and must be paid by counsel Pool personally. Constable Bonaventura may

15

reimburse any funds out of his personal money and not that of the Constable’s Office. After the

16

November 12, 2013, settlement conference, the court will enter an order setting a deadline for

17

completion of these payments.

18
19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Constable Bonaventura’s Ex Parte Motion to File
Late Pleading (#88) is GRANTED.

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Settlement Conference is scheduled for November 12, 2013,

21

at 10:00 a.m. Defendant Constable Bonaventura, his counsel, and defendants Daniel F. Palazzo and

22

Timothy Michael Beckett and their counsel, are required to appear in person for the November 12,

23

2013, settlement conference.

24

defendants Clark

25

County, Nevada and Las Vegas Township Constables Office must be available by telephone. Counsel

26

13

Plaintiff Travelers Property Casualty Company of America and

1

for plaintiff Travelers Property Casualty Company of America and defendants Clark County, Nevada

2

and Las Vegas Township Constables Office must also be available to come to the courthouse to sign

3

settlement documents should the parties reach a settlement.

4

DATED this 29th day of August, 2013.

5
6

CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

14