Harris v. City of Henderson et al

Filing 101

ORDER granting 95 Motion to Extend Time; ORDER denying 96 Motion for Hearing; Plaintiff shall have until December 22, 2017, to attempt to secure Section 1983 litigation counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 11/14/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
    1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 HARVESTER HARRIS, 8 9 v. Case No. 2:15-cv-00337-GMN-PAL Plaintiff, 10 (Mot Ext Time – ECF No. 95) (Mot for SC – ECF No. 96) LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al. 11 ORDER Defendant. 12 Before the court is Plaintiff’s Request for Extension of Time to Secure Counsel Pursuant 13 to Order (90) and Motion for Settlement Conference (ECF Nos. 95, 96). The court has considered 14 the motions and defendants’ Response to the Motion for Settlement Conference (ECF No. 100). 15 The court granted attorney Cal Potter’s motion to withdraw and gave plaintiff additional 16 time to seek substitute counsel. Attorney Jay Kenyon remains counsel of record for Mr. Harris, 17 but is seeking counsel with experience in Section 1983 litigation to assist with the trial. He requests 18 additional time to finalize association with another firm. In addition, he requests that the court 19 enter an order directing the parties to participate in good faith in a settlement conference before 20 the time and expense of trial preparation is incurred. 21 Defendants filed a response to the motion for settlement conference indicating they have 22 no opposition to a settlement conference after dispositive motions are decided. However, they 23 have a pending request that district judge reconsider her order denying their motions for summary 24 judgment (ECF No. 93) as moot. Defendants indicate that if the district judge reconsiders her 25 order, and considers the motions for summary judgment on the merits, the decision will have a 26 substantial impact on negotiating a settlement. The response took no position with respect to the 27 request for additional time to retain Section 1983 counsel. 28 1     1 Mr. Kenyon does not indicate how long he anticipates it will take to associate a firm with 2 Section 1983 experience. No trial date has been set, and will not be set until the joint pretrial order 3 is filed. The district judge has directed that the joint pretrial order be filed by December 4, 2017. 4 Defendants have requested reconsideration of the district judge’s denial of motions for summary 5 judgment as moot. Defendants also request that the district judge reconsider her order requiring 6 the parties to file the joint pretrial order. Plaintiff’s response to the motion to reconsider agrees 7 that the issues have been briefed by the parties and may be ruled upon by the court. The court 8 will grant plaintiff’s request for additional time to find additional counsel with Section 1983 9 litigation experience. However, as defendants indicate resolution of the pending motions is needed 10 to realistically assess settlement the court will deny the motion for a settlement conference at this 11 time. The district judge ordinarily automatically refers cases to the undersigned for a settlement 12 conference, either after briefing of dispositive motions or after decision of dispositive motions. 13 IT IS ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiff’s Request for an Extension of Time (ECF No. 95) is GRANTED, and plaintiff 15 shall have until December 22, 2017, to attempt to secure Section 1983 litigation 16 counsel. 17 18 19 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Settlement Conference (ECF No. 96) is DENIED without prejudice. DATED this 14th day of November, 2017. 20 21 PEGGY A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?