Flowers v. Baca et al
Filing
101
ORDER Re: 100 Joint Status Report Regarding Status of Settlement Funds. Plaintiff's Motion for Demand of Negotiated Settlement (ECF No. 99 ) is denied without prejudice to allow additional time to confirm Plaintiff's receipt of the funds from the Arizona Department of Corrections from the cashed second settlement check. Signed by Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney on 2/29/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
JANET L. MERRILL (Bar No. 10736)
Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
Office of the Attorney General
555 E. Washington Ave., Ste. 3900
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
(702) 486-3370 (phone)
(702) 486-3773 (fax)
Email: jmerrill@ag.nv.gov
Attorneys for Defendant,
Isidro Baca, Bruce Bannister, Ronald Centric,
Greg Cox, John Keast, Bruce Spero
and Lisa Walsh
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
12
13
JOHN FLOWERS aka
CRAIG JACOBSEN, JR,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00366-RFB-CSD
Plaintiff,
14
15
vs.
16
ISIDRO BACA, et al.,
JOINT STATUS REPORT REGARDING
STATUS OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS
Defendants.
17
18
Plaintiff John Flowers aka Craig Jacobsen, Jr. by and through his counsel, Jackson
19
Lewis P.C., and Defendants, Isidro Baca, Bruce Bannister, Ronald Centric, Greg Cox,
20
John Keast, Bruce Spero and Lisa Walsh, by and through counsel, Janet L. Merrill,
21
Deputy Attorney General, hereby submit this Joint Status Report in response to
22
Plaintiff’s Motion for Demand of Negotiation Settlement. ECF No. 99.
23
1.
On October 31, 2023, the parties submitted a Joint Notice of Settlement,
24
which stated the parties had reached a settlement and were in the process of finalizing
25
settlement documents.
26
2.
On December 28, 2023, the parties submitted a Joint Status Report
27
Regarding Settlement. ECF No. 96. The stipulation stated the parties were in the process
28
of finalizing the settlement documents and issuing the settlement checks, but this process
1
1
was delayed, in part, due to the Arizona Department of Correction’s restrictions on
2
accepting checks for inmate deposit accounts.
3
3.
On January 4, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel met with Plaintiff via telephone to
4
discuss the terms of the settlement agreement and explain how the settlement fund
5
would be dispersed. Plaintiff indicated he understood how the funds would be dispersed.
6
Counsel requested Plaintiff confirm when he received the funds as Arizona’s Department
7
of Corrections, Inmate Banking Division provided this information directly to Plaintiff.
8
9
10
4.
On January 17, 2024, Plaintiff provided a signed copy of the settlement
agreement and final release of all claims.
5.
After receiving the executed settlement agreement, the Nevada Department
11
of Corrections issued one check and the State of Nevada issued the second settlement
12
check. The two checks totaled the total settlement amount.
13
14
15
6.
On February 6, 2024, Plaintiff informed counsel via letter he had received
the first settlement check but had yet to receive the second.
7.
Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Plaintiff’s case worker to request a telephone
16
call regarding the settlement funds. However, the case worker stated that Plaintiff had
17
been transferred to a new unit and counsel must contact the new unit case worker to
18
arrange a call.
19
8.
Plaintiff’s counsel contacted the new case worker to request a telephone call
20
to confirm whether Plaintiff had received the second check. The case worker informed
21
Plaintiff’s counsel that “due to his current status,” Plaintiff could not participate in
22
telephone calls until a mental health provider authorized it.
23
9.
As of February 27, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel has yet to receive confirmation
24
that Plaintiff can participate in a telephone call to confirm whether he received the
25
second settlement check.
26
10.
On February 15, 2024, Plaintiff, without the assistance of counsel, filed a
27
Motion for Demand of Negotiated Settlement. ECF No. 99. Plaintiff stated he had
28
received the first settlement check but not the second.
2
11.
1
2
Following the filing of this document, Katlyn M. Brady and Janet L. Merrill,
as counsel of record, discussed the status of the second check and Plaintiff’s pro se motion.
12.
3
Ms. Merrill confirmed that the State of Nevada’s financial records
4
demonstrate the second settlement check in the required amount was received, and
5
cashed, by the Arizona Department of Corrections.
13.
6
During these conversations, Ms. Brady stated once Plaintiff confirmed he
7
received the second check, the parties would submit a stipulation to dismiss this matter
8
with prejudice.
9
14.
Plaintiff’s counsel is currently waiting for the Arizona Department of
10
Corrections to allow Plaintiff to participate in a telephone call to confirm whether he has
11
since received the second settlement check. Once the parties receive that information, a
12
stipulation to dismiss will be submitted.
13
///
14
///
15
///
16
///
17
///
18
///
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
3
1
15.
Accordingly, the parties jointly request the Court deny Plaintiff’s pro se
2
Motion to Enforce Settlement without prejudice to allow additional time to confirm
3
Plaintiff’s receipt of the funds from the Arizona Department of Corrections from the
4
cashed second settlement check.
5
DATED this 29th day of February 2024.
DATED this 29th day of February 2024.
6
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
7
8
9
10
11
12
By: __Katlyn M. Brady________________
Katlyn M. Brady, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 14173
Jackson Lewis P.C.
300 South Fourth Street
Suite 900
Las Vegas, NV 89101
By: Janet L. Merrill
Janet L. Merrill, Esq.
Nevada Attorney General’s Office
Nevada Bar No. 10736
555 E. Washington Avenue
Suite 3900
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Attorneys for Defendants
13
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
DATED: February 29, 2024
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?