Sierra Development Company v. Chartwell Advisory Group Ltd.

Filing 195

ORDER directing the settling parties to meet and confer and submit a proposed procedure for a settlement conference no later than 5/30/2014. Pending the settlement conference, discovery will be stayed, and the court will decide the 162 joint motion to stay discovery after the settlement conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 5/15/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

SIERRA DEVELOPMENT CO. dba CLUB
CAL NEVA,

ORDER
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12
13

Case No. 3:13-CV-0602-RCJ (VPC)

v.
CHARTWELL ADVISORY GROUP, LTD.,
Defendant.
AND RELATED CLAIMS.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On April 1, 2014, the court held a case management conference in this action (#165).
The court noted that there are numerous dispositive motions filed in this action (#s 108, 109,
112, 113, 124, 125, 126, 130, 131, 135, 136, 137, 138, and 154), as well as a joint motion to stay
discovery pending resolution of motions to dismiss and to sever (#162). The court stayed
discovery pending a ruling on counterclaim defendants’ motion to stay discovery (#165).
At the case management conference, the court also noted that many parties reported an
interest in a settlement conference and ordered counsel for Chartwell Advisory Group, Ltd. to
canvas counsel for all parties and report whether parties are interested in an early settlement
conference. Id. The report, filed May 1, 2014, indicates that the following parties are interested
in participating in a settlement conference:
Party represented by Calvin Dunlap, Esq. and Joshua Wolson, Esq.:
Chartwell Advisory Group, Ltd.

1

Parties represented by Matthew C. Addison, Esq.:

2

Eldorado Resorts LLC

3

Circus and Eldorado Joint Venture, LLC (Silver Legacy)

4

Parties represented by Leslie Bryan Hart, Esq.:

5

Sparks Nugget, Inc.

6

Cashell Entities:

7

Cashell Enterprises, LLC

8

Winners Hotel and Casino, Inc.

9

Topaz Lodge, Inc.

10

Parties represented by Joshua J. Hicks, Esq.:

11

Golden Nugget, Inc.

12

GNLV Corp.

13

Golden Nugget Hotels and Casinos

14

Peppermill, Inc.

15

Peppermill Hotel & Casino, Inc.

16

Wendover Casinos, Inc.

17

Peppermill Casinos, Inc.

18
19

Parties represented by Michael N. Feder, Esq.
Caesars Parties:

20

3535 LV Corp.

21

Caesar’s Entertainment Golf, Inc.

22

Caesars Entertainment Corp.

23

Caesars Entertainment Operating Co., Inc.

24

Desert Palace, Inc.

25

FHR Corp.

26

Harrah’s Imperial Palace Corp.

27

Harrah’s Las Vegas LLC

28

Harrah’s Laughlin LLC

-2-

1

Harvey’s Tahoe Management Co., Inc.

2

Parball Corp.

3

Rio Development Co., Inc.

4

Rio Properties, LLC

5

Mesquite Parties:

6

Mesquite Gaming, LLC

7

RBG, LLC

8

B&BB, Inc.

9

Casablanca Resorts, LLC

10

Affinity Gaming, Inc.

11

Riverside Resort and Hotel Casino, Inc.

12

Parties represented by Todd L. Bice, Esq. :

13

Station Casinos LLC

14

MGM Entities:

15

Edgewater Hotel Corp.

16

Goldstrike Investments, Inc.

17

MGM Resorts International

18

MSE Investments, Inc.

19

New Castle Corp.

20

Ramparts, Inc.

21
22
23
24
25
26

Parties represented by James R. Hales, Esq.:
Lakeside Inn, Inc.
(#193). Parties not interested in a settlement conference at this time are:
Parties represented by David C. McElhinney, Esq.
Sierra Development Company dba Club Cal Neva
Parties represented by Katherine F. Parks, Esq.:

27

Wimar Tahoe Corp.

28

Tropicana Entertainment, Inc.

-3-

Tropicana Express, LLC fka Tropicana Express, Inc.

1
2

Id.

3

Based on this report, the court will convene a settlement conference for those parties who

4

signified they would like to participate (the “settling parties”). Given the number of parties, the

5

court is interested in recommendations from counsel concerning the most efficient and cost

6

effective means to hold the settlement conference.

7

settlement conference, or it will consider some other proposal that may be more streamlined.

8

Based upon the foregoing,

9

The court is willing to convene one

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

10

1.

The settling parties shall meet and confer and submit a proposed procedure for a

11

settlement conference no later than Friday, May 30, 2014. If no consensus is reached, the parties

12

may submit competing proposals for the format of the settlement conference on that same date,

13

and the court will decide how best to proceed.

14

2.

Thereafter, the court will set a settlement conference.

15

3.

Pending the settlement conference, discovery will be STAYED, and the court will

16
17

decide the joint motion to stay discovery (#162) after the settlement conference.
Dated May 15, 2014.

18
19

_______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-