VASQUEZ-BRENES v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, 2:12-CV-1635 JCM (VCF). (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20170522947
Visitors: 10
Filed: May 19, 2017
Latest Update: May 19, 2017
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Presently before the court is plaintiffs' unopposed motion requesting that this court provide written indication pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1(b) that the court is willing to entertain a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). Plaintiffs seek clarification regarding this court's treatment of their pendant state law claims, arguing that the Ninth
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Presently before the court is plaintiffs' unopposed motion requesting that this court provide written indication pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1(b) that the court is willing to entertain a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). Plaintiffs seek clarification regarding this court's treatment of their pendant state law claims, arguing that the Ninth ..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is plaintiffs' unopposed motion requesting that this court provide written indication pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1(b) that the court is willing to entertain a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a).
Plaintiffs seek clarification regarding this court's treatment of their pendant state law claims, arguing that the Ninth Circuit's memorandum in this action did not discuss the state claims. (ECF No. 90). Specifically, they wish the court would articulate if the pendant state law claims were dismissed without prejudice in connection with a decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. (Id.).
Plaintiffs also seek clarification whether the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department would remain a party to this case due to a vicarious liability theory, though the specific claims against that defendant have been resolved. (Id.).
Accordingly,
The court ISSUES an indicative ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1(a)(3) that plaintiff's unopposed motion raises a substantial issue.
Source: Leagle
