Filed: Apr. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Presently before the court is the matter of Santopietro v. Howell et al., case number 2:12cv-01648-JCM-PAL. On September 19, 2012, plaintiff Michele Santopietro initiated this civil rights action against defendants Clayborn Howell, Christine Crawford, and Francisco Lopez-Rosende (collectively "officers"). (ECF No. 1). The record before the court establishes the following facts: On May 28, 2011, Santopietro and her friend, Lea Patrick, were working
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Presently before the court is the matter of Santopietro v. Howell et al., case number 2:12cv-01648-JCM-PAL. On September 19, 2012, plaintiff Michele Santopietro initiated this civil rights action against defendants Clayborn Howell, Christine Crawford, and Francisco Lopez-Rosende (collectively "officers"). (ECF No. 1). The record before the court establishes the following facts: On May 28, 2011, Santopietro and her friend, Lea Patrick, were working ..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is the matter of Santopietro v. Howell et al., case number 2:12cv-01648-JCM-PAL.
On September 19, 2012, plaintiff Michele Santopietro initiated this civil rights action against defendants Clayborn Howell, Christine Crawford, and Francisco Lopez-Rosende (collectively "officers"). (ECF No. 1). The record before the court establishes the following facts:
On May 28, 2011, Santopietro and her friend, Lea Patrick, were working together on the Las Vegas Strip in their "sexy cop" costumes. See (ECF No. 55). Howell approached the sexy cops, took a free picture, but refused to pay a tip. See Id. After Patrick complained, stating that Howell had agreed to tip her, the officers arrested Santopietro and Patrick for "doing business without a license" in violation of Clark County Municipal Code § 06.56.030. See Id.
On June 16, 2014, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the officers, holding that the officers had probable cause to arrest Santopeitro. Id. On May 24, 2017, the Ninth Circuit reversed in part and remanded, holding that "genuine disputes of fact remain as to (1) which statements Santopietro made, and (2) the nature of the statement made." (ECF No. 69). Since then, neither party has substantively appeared in this litigation.
Because the court cannot proceed with this action until the parties file a proposed joint pretrial order, the court will set a new filing deadline thirty (30) days from the date of this order. If the parties fail to submit the necessary filing, plaintiff shall immediately follow the protocol for default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. If plaintiff does not move for default, the court will dismiss this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall file a proposed joint pretrial order within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. If the parties fail to comply with this order, plaintiff shall initiate the protocol for default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. If plaintiff does not move for default, the court will dismiss this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
