Correa v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, 2:16-cv-01852-JAD-NJK. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20191121c04
Visitors: 28
Filed: Nov. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 20, 2019
Summary: Order Granting Unopposed Motion in Limine and Directing Plaintiffs to Show Cause Why This Case Should Not Be Dismissed [ECF No. 74] JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . This wrongful-death case arises out of the shooting death of Abel Correa by Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) officers Glenn Taylor and Eli Prunchak. In anticipation of the trial that is scheduled to begin on December 17, 2019, defendants move in limine to preclude plaintiffs from presenting any evidence of
Summary: Order Granting Unopposed Motion in Limine and Directing Plaintiffs to Show Cause Why This Case Should Not Be Dismissed [ECF No. 74] JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . This wrongful-death case arises out of the shooting death of Abel Correa by Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) officers Glenn Taylor and Eli Prunchak. In anticipation of the trial that is scheduled to begin on December 17, 2019, defendants move in limine to preclude plaintiffs from presenting any evidence of t..
More
Order Granting Unopposed Motion in Limine and Directing Plaintiffs to Show Cause Why This Case Should Not Be Dismissed
[ECF No. 74]
JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.
This wrongful-death case arises out of the shooting death of Abel Correa by Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) officers Glenn Taylor and Eli Prunchak. In anticipation of the trial that is scheduled to begin on December 17, 2019, defendants move in limine to preclude plaintiffs from presenting any evidence of their damages because the plaintiffs failed to disclose or compute their damages as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)((1)(A) requires and the plaintiffs identified no medical-care providers or other experts who can testify about their claimed emotional-distress damages.1
Any opposition to that motion was due two days ago.2 Plaintiffs, who are represented by counsel, have not filed such an opposition or moved to extend the time to do so. Local Rule 7-2(d) provides that "[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion, except a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or a motion for attorney's fees, constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion." I construe the plaintiffs' failure to oppose this motion as their consent to granting it. And with good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion in Limine [ECF No. 74] is GRANTED; plaintiffs are precluded from introducing any evidence of damages at trial.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs have until December 2, 2019, to SHOW CAUSE in writing why this case should not be dismissed and the trial vacated for inability to prove a required element of their claims at trial. If plaintiffs file a response to this order to show cause, defendants will have until December 6, 2019, to file a written response. No further briefing will be permitted.
FootNotes
1. ECF No. 74.
2. LR 7-2(b); ECF No. 74 (minute order).
Source: Leagle