Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

PREISS v. S&R PRODUCTION COMPANY, 2:10-cv-01795-RLH-RJJ. (2012)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20120404b28
Filed: Apr. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2012
Summary: ORDER (Motion for Stay-#53) ROGER L. HUNT, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Attorney Mike Meier's Motion for Stay (#53, filed Mar. 9, 2012) of the sanction award against him and his co-counsel Sharon Nelson. The Court has also considered Defendants S&R Production and Roy Horn's Opposition (#55, filed Mar. 26), and Meier's Reply (#58, filed Apr. 1). On September 21, 2011, the Court sanctioned Plaintiffs' counsel Mike Meier and Sharon Nelson under 28 U.S.C. 1927. (Dkt. #45.)
More

ORDER

(Motion for Stay-#53)

ROGER L. HUNT, District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Attorney Mike Meier's Motion for Stay (#53, filed Mar. 9, 2012) of the sanction award against him and his co-counsel Sharon Nelson. The Court has also considered Defendants S&R Production and Roy Horn's Opposition (#55, filed Mar. 26), and Meier's Reply (#58, filed Apr. 1).

On September 21, 2011, the Court sanctioned Plaintiffs' counsel Mike Meier and Sharon Nelson under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. (Dkt. #45.) Since then, Meier and Nelson have appealed that order and the Court's order dismissing this case. Meier now seeks a stay of Defendants' efforts to enforce the judgment. Meier bases his request on a "recently discovered letter" from counsel for Defendants (Marvin Putnam) to Nelson. Meier requests that this Court grant a stay pending resolution Plaintiff Oliver Preiss' bar complaint against Putnam or until after limited discovery regarding communications between Nelson and Putnam.

The Court denies the motion. The Nevada State Bar dismissed Preiss' grievance against Putnam within weeks of receiving it. (Dkt. #58, Reply Ex. 1, Letter from Asst. Bar Counsel Phillip J. Pattee to Oliver Priess.) Therefore, the grievance has been resolved. Further, the Court refuses to allow discovery into this matter through its own procedures. Accordingly, rather than having Meier withdraw the motion as he claimed he would do if the Court denied the requested discovery, the Court simply denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Meier's Motion for Stay (#53) is DENIED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer