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)

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