Mendez v. Fiesta Del Norte Home Owners Association et al

Filing 81

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 66 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/30/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10 IRMA MENDEZ,
11

Plaintiff,

12 v.
13 FIESTA DEL NORTE HOME OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-00314-RCJ-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 66)

Pending before the Court is a motion for sanctions filed by Plaintiff, Docket No. 66, which is

17 hereby DENIED. As an initial matter, the relief requested by Plaintiff through this motion is not clear
18 to the Court. She asks the Court to order sanctions against Erica Loyd, an attorney for some of the
19 defendants in the case, but fails to identify a type or amount of sanctions.
In addition, the motion is utterly devoid of legal authority or analysis.1 The body of the motion

20

21 consists of 5 pages of text entitled “Timeline of Events,” which includes unsupported accusations and
22 speculation as well as nine exhibits, many of which are completely unrelated to the instant case. Further,
23 the motion cites no legal authority. “The failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in
24 support of the motion shall constitute a consent to the denial of the motion.” LR 7-2.
25 . . . .
26
27

1

The Court is aware that Plaintiff is a pro se party. Although the Court must construe pleadings
28 liberally in the favor of pro se litigants, pro se litigants are nonetheless bound by the rules of procedure.
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995).

1

In short, Plaintiff’s motion is wholly insufficient to justify any relief, let alone the significant

2 relief of sanctions. “The Court . . . takes very seriously its duty to order relief and sanctions that are
3 based on sound legal authority, [and] are supported by a sufficient evidentiary showing ...” Taddeo v.
4 Am. Invsco Corp., 2015 WL 751072, at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 20, 2015).
5

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, Docket No. 66, is hereby DENIED.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED: November 30, 2015.

8
9
10

______________________________________
_________________________________
_
_
__ __ _
__
_
NANCY J. KOPPE
Y KOPPE
OP
OP E
United States Magistrate Judge
States Magistrate
a
gi tra

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2