Stevens v. Gentry et al
Filing
13
ORDER granting 8 Motion to Extend Stay; granting 12 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Ms. Ginapp shall file a notice explaining her representation status with Defendant Sherrie Horton within seven (7) days from the date of this order. The Stay is extended until 3/3/2017. Defendants shall file a version of the report form attached on or before that date. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 12/7/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
12
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JO GENTRY et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________ )
13
I.
7
8
9
10
11
ROBERTA ANN STEVENS,
2:16-cv-00277-JCM-GWF
ORDER
DISCUSSION
14
On October 31, 2016 and November 15, 2016, the Attorney General’s Office
15
represented that outside counsel would file a substitution of counsel for Defendants Tanya Hill
16
and Silver State Industries and would also represent Defendant Sherrie Horton. (ECF No. 8
17
at 2; ECF No. 10 at 2). The Attorney General’s Office stated that Ms. Ginapp would file a
18
substitution of counsel after the Attorney General’s Office filed its contemporaneous statement
19
to the results of the 90-day stay and the 90-day stay report. (ECF No. 10 at 2).
20
On December 6, 2016, Ms. Ginapp filed a motion for substitution of counsel for
21
Defendants Tanya Hill, Silver State Industries, and Brian Connett. (ECF No. 12 at 2). The
22
Court grants the motion for substitution. The Court directs Ms. Ginapp to file a notice with the
23
Court explaining her representation status with Defendant Sherrie Horton.
24
The Court grants the motion to extend the stay. (ECF No. 8). This case is stayed until
25
Friday, March 3, 2017. The Court will schedule a second early mediation conference.
26
Defendants shall file a version of the report attached to this order regarding the results of the
27
stay on or before Friday, March 3, 2017.
28
...
1
II.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for substitution (ECF No.
2
3
CONCLUSION
12) is granted.
4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Ginapp shall file a notice explaining her
5
representation status with Defendant Sherrie Horton within seven (7) days from the date of this
6
order.
7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to extend stay (ECF No. 8) is granted. The
8
stay is extended until Friday, March 3, 2017. Defendants shall file a version of the report form
9
attached to this order on or before that date.
10
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will refer this case to the Court’s inmate early
11
mediation program. The Court will enter a subsequent order scheduling this case for a second
12
mediation.
13
14
DATED: This 7th day of December, 2016.
15
16
_________________________________
United States Magistrate Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
11
12
13
14
ROBERTA ANN STEVENS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
JO GENTRY et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
2:16-cv-00277-JCM-GWF
REPORT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
RE: RESULTS OF 90-DAY STAY
15
NOTE: ONLY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL FILE THIS FORM. THE
16
INMATE PLAINTIFF SHALL NOT FILE THIS FORM.
17
18
On ________________ [the date of the issuance of the screening order], the Court
19
issued its screening order stating that it had conducted its screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
20
1915A, and that certain specified claims in this case would proceed. The Court ordered the
21
Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada to file a report ninety (90) days after the
22
date of the entry of the Court’s screening order to indicate the status of the case at the end
23
of the 90-day stay. By filing this form, the Office of the Attorney General hereby complies.
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
3
1
2
3
4
REPORT FORM
[Identify which of the following two situations (identified in bold type) describes the case, and
follow the instructions corresponding to the proper statement.]
Situation One: Mediated Case: The case was assigned to mediation by a courtappointed mediator during the 90-day stay. [If this statement is accurate, check ONE of
the six statements below and fill in any additional information as required, then proceed to the
signature block.]
5
6
7
8
____ A mediation session with a court-appointed mediator was held on
_______________ [enter date], and as of this date, the parties have reached a
settlement (even if paperwork to memorialize the settlement remains to be
completed). (If this box is checked, the parties are on notice that they must
SEPARATELY file either a contemporaneous stipulation of dismissal or a motion
requesting that the Court continue the stay in the case until a specified date
upon which they will file a stipulation of dismissal.)
9
10
11
12
13
14
____ A mediation session with a court-appointed mediator was held on
________________ [enter date], and as of this date, the parties have not
reached a settlement. The Office of the Attorney General therefore informs the
Court of its intent to proceed with this action.
____ No mediation session with a court-appointed mediator was held during the 90day stay, but the parties have nevertheless settled the case. (If this box is
checked, the parties are on notice that they must SEPARATELY file a
contemporaneous stipulation of dismissal or a motion requesting that the Court
continue the stay in this case until a specified date upon which they will file a
stipulation of dismissal.)
15
16
17
18
19
20
____ No mediation session with a court-appointed mediator was held during the 90day stay, but one is currently scheduled for ________________ [enter date].
____ No mediation session with a court-appointed mediator was held during the 90day stay, and as of this date, no date certain has been scheduled for such a
session.
____ None of the above five statements describes the status of this case.
Contemporaneously with the filing of this report, the Office of the Attorney
General of the State of Nevada is filing a separate document detailing the status
of this case.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
*****
Situation Two: Informal Settlement Discussions Case: The case was NOT assigned to
mediation with a court-appointed mediator during the 90-day stay; rather, the parties
were encouraged to engage in informal settlement negotiations. [If this statement is
accurate, check ONE of the four statements below and fill in any additional information as
required, then proceed to the signature block.]
____ The parties engaged in settlement discussions and as of this date, the parties
have reached a settlement (even if the paperwork to memorialize the settlement
remains to be completed). (If this box is checked, the parties are on notice that
they must SEPARATELY file either a contemporaneous stipulation of dismissal
or a motion requesting that the Court continue the stay in this case until a
specified date upon which they will file a stipulation of dismissal.)
28
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
____ The parties engaged in settlement discussions and as of this date, the parties
have not reached a settlement. The Office of the Attorney General therefore
informs the Court of its intent to proceed with this action.
____ The parties have not engaged in settlement discussions and as of this date, the
parties have not reached a settlement. The Office of the Attorney General
therefore informs the Court of its intent to proceed with this action.
____ None of the above three statements fully describes the status of this case.
Contemporaneously with the filing of this report, the Office of the Attorney
General of the State of Nevada is filing a separate document detailing the status
of this case.
Submitted this _______ day of __________________, ______ by:
Attorney Name: ________________________
Print
Address:
_____________________________
Signature
________________________________
Phone:
________________________
________________________________
Email:
________________________
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?