The Board of Trustees et al v. Noorda et al
ORDER. The court will require Plaintiff's to serve their 41 motion for contempt on Mr. Mendez and to file proof of that service by 5/30/2017. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 5/23/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, in their capacities
as Trustees of the NATIONAL ROOFING
INDUSTRY PENSION FUND, et al.,
LAMAR VAN NOORDA, et al.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00170-JAD-CWH
Presently before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Hold Edwyn Mendez in Contempt for
Failure to Obey Subpoena (ECF No. 41), filed on April 28, 2017.
The motion includes a certificate of service stating that it was served “[b]y electronic
service, pursuant to Rule 5-4 of the Local Rules of Civil Practice of the United States District of
Nevada . . . .”1 (Mot. (ECF No. 41) at 9.) Mr. Mendez is not a party in this case, and therefore
would not have received electronic service of the motion through the court’s electronic filing
system. The certificate of service does not state whether Mr. Mendez was served with the motion
in another manner. Due process requires that Mr. Mendez receive notice and an opportunity to be
heard before the court considers imposing contempt sanctions. See Int’l Union, United Mine
Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827 (1994); U.S. v. Ayres, 166 F.3d 991, 995-96 (9th Cir.
1999). The court therefore will require Plaintiffs to serve their motion for contempt (ECF No. 41)
on Mr. Mendez and to file proof of that service by May 30, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 23, 2017
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
The court understands Plaintiffs to be referring to Local Rule of Civil Practice 5-1, which deals
with proof of service, given that there is not a local rule numbered 5-4.
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?