OOIDA Risk Retention Group v. Burts et al
ORDER denying 151 motion for immediate status conference. See order for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 4/13/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DN)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
OOIDA RISK RETENTION
MARC A. BORDEAUX, et al.,
April 13, 2017
THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REPORTER: NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is the request for an immediate status conference (ECF No. 151).1 By
their motion, the movants ask this court for an immediate hearing to better understand the
purpose and procedure for the May 3, 2017 hearing. The purpose of the hearing is evident.
OOIDA has filed a motion for sanctions against Mr. Burts and his counsel based upon two
grounds: the court's inherent powers and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The parties have filed their papers
and have supplied the court with many, many exhibits and declarations, not only in support of
their respective positions concerning the motion for sanctions, but also over the course of the
past twenty-four months of discovery and non-dispositive motion practice.
OOIDA's motion for sanctions asks the court to sanction Mr. Burts and counsel, either
jointly or severally, and requests specific relief as follows:
That Burts be judicially estopped from seeking to enforce any new judgment he
may obtain as the fruit of his alleged misdeeds;
Alternatively, that the court declare that for purposes of this case, Burts is bound
by the original judgment based upon principles of estoppel and that the case
On April 10, 2017, Scott Glogovac, Esq. filed a notice of appearance (ECF No. 150). It states
that Margo Piscevich, Esq. is making an appearance on behalf Thomas R. Brennan, Sean P.
Rose, and Scott Glogovac. Local Rule IC 2-1 requires “attorneys who are admitted to the bar of
this court . . . [to] register as a ‘filer’ to file documents electronically and must file all documents
electronically. . . .” If Ms. Piscevich intends to act as counsel for the individuals listed above, she
shall comply with the rule immediately.
proceed as it stood the day before the judgment in state court was allegedly
Under either alternative set forth above, that OOIDA be awarded monetary
sanctions against Burts and his attorneys, and each of them jointly and severally,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or the court’s inherent power in an amount to be
determined at a later hearing, to fairly compensate it for the sums it has expended
in this proceeding due to alleged vexatious multiplication of these proceedings;
Such other relief the court deems proper.
The purpose of this hearing is twofold. First, OOIDA requested oral argument on its
motion (ECF No. 140), and it is the court's practice to grant oral argument when it is requested.
The court anticipates that counsel will make oral arguments for or against the motion for
sanctions. Second, the parties have supplied the court with declarations, exhibits, and deposition
testimony in support of their positions, but also over the course of the many disputes that appear
to have begun in 2014 and continue to the present. This evidence is integral to the disputes
outlined in the briefs concerning OOIDA's motion for sanctions, as well as the relief requested.
In anticipation of the May 3, 2017 hearing, the court has spent considerable time
reviewing prior motions and exhibits, case management minutes, and transcripts of hearings, as
well as the evidence supplied for and against those motions. The purpose of this review has been
to better understand the chronology of events that has resulted in the motion for sanctions, but
also Mr. Burts's decision to withdraw the September 25, 2015 judgment he obtained in the
underlying state court case (ECF No. 66, Ex. 34). Having engaged in that review, the court
determined that the individuals ordered to appear at the May 3rd hearing shall be present to
testify, if called upon to do so, and to answer the court's questions about the facts underlying the
motions for sanctions and subsequent briefing.
At this time, the court does not believe a status conference is necessary, since it has
endeavored to provide counsel and the parties’ guidance through the amended order (ECF No.
144) and this order. The court urges counsel to meet and confer about how they intend to
proceed at the hearing. If after that conferral, counsel require further direction of this court, they
have leave to do so. However, prior to such a request, the parties shall submit a joint report to
advise the court of any agreements reached or disputes concerning any aspect of the hearing.
Thereafter, the court will decide whether a hearing in advance of the one set for May 3, 2017 is
The motion for immediate status conference (ECF No. 151) is DENIED. However, the
parties have leave to renew this request in accordance with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DEBRA K. KEMPI, CLERK
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?