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)

Download PDF
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?