Braver v. HCSLV, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 18, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01959
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 ERIN BRAVER, Case No. 2:21-cv-01959-JCM-NJK

7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER

8 v. [Docket No. 29]

9 HCSLV, INC., et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 On June 28, 2022, the Court ordered Dr. Steven Hoer to show cause why he should not be 12 fined. Docket No. 21. The parties have since settled this case. See Docket No. 26. In light of that 13 settlement, Dr. Hoer would prefer not to respond to the order to show cause. See, e.g., Docket No. 14 27 at 2 (“Defendants are requesting that this Court will waive a formal response from Dr. Hoer”).1 15 Pending before the Court is a stipulation that the order to show cause “be removed from the Court’s 16 calendar.” Docket No. 29.2 That request is DENIED. 17 “It is well established that a federal court may consider collateral issues after an action is 18 no longer pending.” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395 (1990). Even after 19 judgment is entered, courts retain jurisdiction to impose sanctions for previous misconduct in the 20 case. See, e.g., Trustees of the Operating Eng’rs Pension Trust v. Maui One Excavating, Inc., 21 2013 WL 1908328, at *2 (D. Nev. May 7, 2013) (citing United Energy Owners Comm. v. U.S. 22

23 1 This response references contempt sanctions and inherent authority sanctions, Docket No. 27 at 2-3, neither of which are at issue here, see Docket No. 21 at 2 (citing Rules 16(f) and 37(b) 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). 25 2 The local rules require separate filings when separate relief is being requested. Local Rule IC 2-2(b). In violation of that rule, a single document was filed seeking dismissal of this case 26 and a discharging of the order to show cause. Docket No. 26. The Clerk’s Office has since split that stipulation into two separate filings. The Court herein addresses only the request that the order 27 to show cause be discharged in light of the parties’ settlement. Docket No. 29. The Court does not herein express any opinion as to whether the case should be dismissed in light of that 28 settlement. 1} Energy Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 837 F.2d 356, 358 (9th Cir. 1988)). The Court is not persuaded that the 2|| parties’ decision to settle this case is sufficient to wipe clean the serious issues raised in the order 3] to show cause. 4 Accordingly, the stipulation to discharge the order to show cause (Docket No. 29) is 5] DENIED. In light of the issues raised in the prior order to show cause, Docket No. 21, Dr. Steven Hoer is again ORDERED to show cause in writing, no later than July 25, 2022, why he should 7|| not be fined in an amount of up to $10,000. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: July 18, 2022

1] Unite Stanek Ma gistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28