Romano v. Nevada Division of Water Resources

Filing 30

ORDER granting ECF No. 19 Motion for Leave to File to File Amended Answer and denying ECF No. 24 Motion to Reconsider and Clarify. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 08/24/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

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 is a Motion to

13
14

Reconsider and Clarify (ECF No. 24).

15

I.

16

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Thomas Romano alleges Defendant Nevada Division of Water Resources has

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

quitclaimed was of no value. Plaintiff sued Defendant in pro se in this Court. Defendant has

21

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

22

Defendant for asserting them. The Court denied those motions and struck Plaintiff’s Reply to the

23

Answer, which was filed without leave. Plaintiff has appealed that order and has also asked the

24

Court to reconsider or clarify it.

1 of 2

1
2

II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff complains that the Court did not address each of his legal arguments in turn with

3

respect to his previous motion to strike certain affirmative defenses. The Court denies the

4

motion as moot because it contemporaneously grants Defendant’s motion to amend the Answer.

5

For the parties’ benefit going forward, the Court notes that it has ruled before that affirmative

6

defenses must be sufficiently identified as to the legal theory at issue but needn’t contain factual

7

allegations. See Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. Beckhoff Automation, LLC, 23 F. Supp. 3d 1236,

8

1241–42 (D. Nev. 2014) (citing Tyco Fire Prods. LP v. Victaulic Co., 777 F. Supp. 2d 893, 900

9

(E.D. Pa. 2011)).
CONCLUSION

10
11
12
13
14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider and Clarify (ECF No. 24) is
DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer (ECF
No. 19) is GRANTED.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

24th day August, 2016.
Dated this 1st day ofof August, 2016.

17
18

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24

2 of 2