Harriet H. Roland, M.B.A., J.D., Ltd. vs Darlene Hickman, et al
Filing
74
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with prejudice each party bearing its own costs and attorneys fees. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Marvin Hickman and Darlene Hickman must file certifications with the court documenting the time and manner in which they provided each client with a copy of this Order and Report and Recommendation, and informed them of the deadline for objection. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, effective on the respe ctive date each counsel files the certification required above, 49 , 61 Motions to Withdraw are GRANTED. ( Objections to R&R due by 10/25/2017.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 10/11/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
***
4
5
HARRIET H. ROLAND, M.B.A., J.D., LTD.,
6
Plaintiffs,
7
8
9
10
vs.
DARLENE HICKMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
2:15-cv-01133-JCM-VCF
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
WITHDRAW
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT
THIS CASE BE DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On May 12, 2015 plaintiff commenced an action for interpleader and declaratory relief in the
Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada. (ECF No. 1-2). On June 16, 2015, the United
States removed the interpleader action to this court. (ECF No 1).
On August 13, 2015, pursuant to court order entered on August 12, 2015, (ECF No. 30) plaintiff
deposited $103.396.31 (“The Interpled Funds”) with the clerk of court. (ECF No. 32).
Thereafter, pursuant to this court’s order entered on March 28, 2016, The Interpled Funds were
transferred to the Eighth Judicial District Court, Department E, for further proceedings, in accordance
with the doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction. (ECF No. 38).
On April 20, 2017, counsel for defendant Marvin Hickman moved to withdraw.
On June 24, 2017, counsel for defendant Darlene Hickman moved to withdraw.
Plaintiff has disclaimed any interest in The Interpled Funds.
(ECF No.47-1).
Defendant
Summerlin Hospital Medical Center has stipulated that The Interpled Funds should be paid first to the
United States to satisfy the tax liens. Id. Defendant Summerlin Hospital Medical Center recognized that
1
upon satisfaction of the tax liens, there will be no surplus available for further distribution, because the
2
amount of the tax claims far exceeds the amount of The Interpled Funds. Id.
3
Defendants Marvin Hickman and Darlene Hickman have not provided any argument or evidence
4
to this court which would support a finding that either of them is entitled to receive any portion of The
5
Interpled Funds.
On October 11, 2017, the court held a hearing to address all pending motions. The parties
6
7
appearing reported that The Interpled Funds have been transferred to The United States.
8
Accordingly,
9
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with prejudice each party bearing
10
its own costs and attorneys fees.
11
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that counsel from Marvin Hickman and Darlene Hickman must
12
deliver a copy of this Order and Report and Recommendation to their respective clients, notifying them
13
that, should they object to the Order or Report and Recommendation, they must file their objections with
14
the court on or before the 14th day after this Order and Report and Recommendation is entered on the
15
docket.
16
IT IS FURTHER ORDERD that counsel for Marvin Hickman and Darlene Hickman must file
17
certifications with the court documenting the time and manner in which they provided each client with a
18
copy of this Order and Report and Recommendation, and informed them of the deadline for objection.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, effective on the respective date each counsel files the certification
required above, Motions to Withdraw (ECF Nos. 49 and 61) are GRANTED.
DATED this 11th day of October, 2017.
_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
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?