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