Harper v. Nevada Property 1, LLC et al

Filing 53

ORDER for Plaintiff to properly file a declaration on or before 2/24/2021; Plaintiff must also serve defense counsel the 52 Statement already filed and must file proof of service by 2/18/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/17/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

Download PDF
Case 2:19-cv-02069-GMN-VCF Document 53 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 MITCHELL E. HARPER, Case No.: 2:19-cv-02069-GMN-VCF 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9 10 11 12 v. [Docket No. 52] NEVADA PROPERTY 1, LLC, Defendant(s). Pending before the Court is a written statement from Plaintiff, Docket No. 52, which is 13 defective in several ways. 14 First, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file “a declaration in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 15 1746.” Docket No. 48 at 2. The written statement does not comply with the statute, including that 16 it was not provided under penalty of perjury. 17 Second, the Court’s order for the contents of that declaration were very clear. The Court 18 ordered that the declaration must include: “(1) [Plaintiff’s] beliefs as to the scope of [the provisions 19 regarding confidentiality and non-admission of liability] at the time of the settlement being reached 20 on the record and (2) a direct statement that these are the actual reasons that he is refusing to 21 dismiss this case based on the settlement stated on the record.” Id. Plaintiff’s written statement 22 does not comply with this order. For example, Plaintiff’s response to the motion to enforce 23 settlement stated that, at the time of stating on the record that the case had settled, Plaintiff did not 24 believe that the confidentiality requirement would prohibit him from discussing “the trauma 25 inflicted on him while in Defendant’s employ.” Docket No. 44 at 4. The Court has not identified 26 in the written statement any direct attestation that this was in fact Plaintiff’s belief at the time of 27 placing the settlement on the record, nor any direct statement that this is an actual reason that he 28 is currently refusing to proceed with dismissing the case. Moreover, the written statement appears 1 Case 2:19-cv-02069-GMN-VCF Document 53 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 2 1 to address Plaintiff’s understanding of the general release provision, see Docket No. 52 at 6, but it 2 does not address in a direct manner the provision that there would be no admission of liability. 3 Lastly, Plaintiff’s counsel filed this written statement under seal, but there is no proof of 4 service showing that it was served on defense counsel. See Local Rule IA 10-5(d). 5 Accordingly, the Court again ORDERS Plaintiff to file a declaration in compliance with 6 28 U.S.C. § 1746 attesting to: (1) his beliefs as to the scope of each of the provisions identified 7 above at the time of the settlement being reached on the record and (2) a direct statement that these 8 are the actual reasons that he is refusing to dismiss this case based on the settlement stated on the 9 record. This declaration must be tailored to address the specific factual representations and 10 arguments presented in opposing the motion to enforce settlement. Docket No. 44. This 11 declaration must be filed and served in compliance with the local rules by February 24, 2021. The 12 Court has already provided an extra opportunity for Plaintiff to properly support his factual 13 contentions. He must ensure that he complies with this order as there will be no further 14 opportunities. 15 In addition to the above, Plaintiff’s counsel must serve defense counsel with the written 16 statement already filed at Docket No. 52 and must file a proof of service by February 18, 2021. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: February 17, 2021 19 ______________________________ Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?