Masterson v. The Walt Disney Company et al

Filing 12

ORDER Re: 11 Response to 10 Order to Show Cause. The Court will defer ruling conclusively on whether Mr. Booke is subject to the requirements in Local Rule IA 11-1(b). Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 6/28/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

CARLA JO MASTERSON,
Plaintiff(s),

12
13

ORDER

v.

14

Case No.: 2:18-cv-00989-JCM-NJK

THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, et al.,
Defendant(s).

15
16

Pending before the Court is an order for attorney Bradley Booke to show cause why he

17 should not be subject to the requirements in Local Rule IA 11-1(b) for attorneys who are admitted
18 in Nevada but do not maintain an office here. Docket No. 10. Mr. Booke has filed a response.
19 Docket No. 11. That response represents that Mr. Booke is physically in Nevada roughly one
20 week per month to provide legal services. Id. at ¶ 5. Mr. Booke also asserts essentially that he
21 has a set-up that amounts to a virtual office here, with a receptionist and workspace that is shared
22 with unrelated professionals. Id. at ¶¶ 4, 7.
23

It is not entirely clear to the Court that Mr. Booke “maintains an office in Nevada” for

24 purposes of Local Rule IA 11-1(b).1 At the same time, Mr. Booke is implicitly attesting that he is
25
26

1

Indeed, it appears to the Court that Mr. Booke has described the equivalent of a mail-drop
location at which he occasionally uses shared office space as the need arises. The local rules
27 expressly direct that a “mail-drop location does not constitute an office under this rule.” Local
Rule IA 11-1(b)(1). Mr. Booke has presented no legal authority that participation in a shared
28 workspace that may be occupied at any given time by completely unrelated professionals qualifies
as “maintaining an office.” The changing occupancy of this physical space appears to doom Mr.
1

1 able to fully comply with his litigation obligations. See, e.g., Docket No. 11 at ¶ 5 (“As necessary,
2 I am also physically present in Las Vegas for litigation work”).

The purpose behind the

3 requirement to have counsel physically present in Nevada is clear: such presence is necessary,
4 inter alia, to enable efficient service on counsel, to ensure personal attendance at court hearings,
5 and to foster scheduling of depositions. Given the circumstances, the Court will defer ruling
6 conclusively on whether Mr. Booke is subject to the requirements in Local Rule IA 11-1(b). The
7 Court may revisit this issue at any time, and will be especially inclined to do so in the event that it
8 becomes clear that Mr. Booke’s non-presence in the state is a hindrance to the efficient
9 advancement of this litigation.2
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated: June 28, 2018
______________________________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26 Booke’s position. See Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.) (defining “maintenance” as “[t]o continue
in possession of (property, etc.)”).
27
2
Of course, nothing herein prevents Mr. Booke from complying with Local Rule IA 1128 1(b) without further Court order so as to put this issue to rest.
2