Romano v. Nevada Division of Water Resources

Filing 22

ORDER denying ECF No. 15 Motion for Sanctions; denying ECF No. 16 Motion to Strike; striking ECF No. 17 Reply. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/29/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

______________________________________
)
)
THOMAS J. ROMANO,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NEVADA DIVISION OF WATER
)
RESOURCES,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

3:16-cv-00204-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

This case arises out of a water rights dispute. Pending before the Court are a Motion for

13
14

Sanctions (ECF No. 15) and a Motion to Strike (ECF No. 16). The Court denies the motions.

15

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The facts as alleged in the Complaint are difficult to follow. It seems clear that Plaintiff

16
17

Thomas Romano believes Defendant Nevada Division of Water Resources has improperly

18

refused to recognize his right to use 82.62 acre feet of water to benefit certain land. Plaintiff

19

appears to allege that the prior owner quitclaimed the water rights to him in 2010, but Defendant

20

is allegedly of the position that it cancelled the rights in 2004 such that the thing quitclaimed was

21

of no value. In any case, Plaintiff sued Defendant in pro se in this Court. Defendant has

22

answered. Plaintiff has asked the Court to strike Defendant’s affirmative defenses and to

23

sanction defendant for asserting them.

24

///

1 of 2

1

II.

DISCUSSION

2

“The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,

3

immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). There is no such material

4

in the Answer. Moreover, the motion to strike is itself improper and should be stricken, insofar

5

as it also constitutes a “reply” to Defendant’s Answer. Such a pleading is not allowed without a

6

court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7).

7

“[A] motion [for sanctions] must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be

8

presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn

9

or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets.”

10

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). Plaintiff attests to having served the motion on May 24, 2016. (See

11

Mot. 10, ECF No. 15). He filed the motion on May 25, 2016, without waiting 21 days for a

12

potential withdrawal or correction. The motion is therefore improper.
CONCLUSION

13
14
15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 15) and the Motion
to Strike (ECF No. 16) are DENIED.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Reply (ECF No. 17) is STRICKEN.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated this 29th day of June, 2016.
Dated this 31st day of May, 2016.

19
20

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24

2 of 2