Courtney Motley v. M. Malta, C. Miranda

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 24, 2026
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02075
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 || ROBERT W. FREEMAN Nevada Bar No. 3062 2 || Robert.Freeman@lewisbrisbois.com E. MATTHEW FREEMAN 3 || Nevada Bar No. 14198 Matt.Freeman@lewisbrisbois.com 4 || LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 5 || Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 702.893.3383 6 || FAX: 702.893.3789 Attorneys for Defendants 7 || Corrections Officer Matthew Malta Corrections Officer Carlos Miranda 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA, SOUTHERN DIVISION 1 1 RR 12 || COURTNEY MOTLEY, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-02075-GMN-BNW 13 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF JOINT MOTION OF ALL PARTIES TO VACATE JUDGMENT 14 vs. PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT 15 || M. MALTA, C. MIRANDA 16 Defendants. 17 18 COMES NOW Corrections Officer Matthew Malta and Corrections Officer Carlos 19 || Miranda (“Defendants”), by and through their attorneys of record, Robert W. Freeman, Esq. and 20 || E. Matthew Freeman, Esq., of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, and Plaintiff Courtney 21 || Motley, individually, and acting pro se, and hereby jointly request that the Court vacate its 22 || Judgment against Defendants, entered on March 12, 2026. (ECF No. 156). This request comes 23 || pursuant to a settlement reached while on appeal through the Ninth Circuit Mediation Program. 24 || This motion is made and based upon Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the 25 || grounds that the proposed settlement avoids the hardship of a costly and uncertain appeal and 26 || satisfies other equities in this matter. DEE | Vecaaea 78} --

1 || The motion is based on this notice, the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the files 2 || and records in this action, and such other evidence as the Court may permit to be presented. 3||DATED the 2 day of Aue _, 2026. DATED the 22 day of Ame , 2026. 4 Ce \. M9 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP ye O° i — ROBEKRT W. FREEMAN 7 1 ae MOLESEY Nevada Bar No.: 3062 High Desert State Prison E. MATTHEW FREEMAN 811.0. Box 650 Nevada Bar No.: 14198 9 Indian Springs, Nevada 89070-0650 6385 S. Rainbow Blvd., Ste. 600 Plaintiff Proper Person Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 10 Attorneys for Defendants 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 78

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 1. INTRODUCTION 3 The Parties stipulate that the facts stated in this Introduction are true and correct. 4 A. Nature of the case. 5 This case arises out of two use of force incidents against Plaintiff that occurred on 6 || September 17/18, 2021, and September 24, 2021. On those dates, Plaintiff was an incarcerated 7 || inmate being housed at the Clark County Detention Center. In response to both incidents, Plaintiff 8 || alleged the Defendant Officers violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights against excessive force 9 || and First Amendment rights against retaliation. 10 B, Judgment against Defendants il After the Bench Trial, held on January 26, 2026, in front of U.S. District Court Judge 12 || Navarro, Judgment was entered against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff. (ECF No. 156). 13 || Plaintiff was awarded $10,005 in compensatory damages, and $5,000 in punitive damages against 14 || Defendant Malta, and $10,000 in compensatory damages, and $5,000 in punitive damages against 15 || Defendant Miranda, totaling $30,005. 16 C. Appeal to the Ninth Circuit of Appeals; Conditional settlement. 17 On March 27, 2026, Defendants filed their Notice of Appeal from the Judgment, (ECF 18 || No. 159). The case was assigned to the Ninth Circuit Mediation Program. The Parties 19 || participated in a Mediation Assessment Conference on April 21, 2016. During the Assessment 20 || Conference the Parties expressed their desire the settle the case. With the assistance of the Circuit 21 || Mediator, the parties reached a settlement of the appeal conditioned upon the vacatur by the 22 || District Court of its March 12, 2026, Judgment in Favor of Courtney Motley. (ECF No. 156). 23 || The terms of the conditional setthement specify that Defendants will pay Plaintiff $30,005, 24 || conditioned upon the granting by this Court of a joint motion of the parties to vacate the March 25 || 12, 2026, Judgment in Favor of Courtney Motley. 26 To effectuate the conditional settlement, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on 27 || stipulation of the parties, dismissed the appeal, without prejudice subject to reinstatement should 28 || this Court decline to grant the parties’ joint request for vacatur. (That order of dismissal without

1 || prejudice to reinstatement is part of the parties’ Joint Request for Judicial Notice filed herewith.) 2 || Upon vacatur of the Judgment, Defendants will dismiss the appeal, with prejudice. 3 The Parties now bring the present joint motion for vacatur of the Judgment pursuant to the 4 || settlement agreement. 5 |/ II. RELEVANT STANDARD 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that a court “may relieve a party or its legal 7 || representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” where “the judgment has been 8 || satisfied, released or discharged,” “applying it prospectively is no longer equitable,” or for “any 9 || other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5), (6). 10 The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court must balance the equities when asked to 11 || vacate its own judgment or order — extraordinary or exceptional circumstances need not be found.! 12 || American Games, Inc. v. Trade Products, Inc., 142 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1998). In 13 || determining whether the equities favor vacatur, the district court should consider “the 14 || consequences and attendant hardships of dismissal or refusal to dismiss and the competing values 15 || of finality of judgment and [the] right to relitigation [sic] and unreviewed disputes.” Jbid. (internal 16 || quotation marks omitted); accord Cammermeyer v. Perry, 97 F.3d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir, 1996); 17 || Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1370-71 (9th Cir. 1995); Ringsby Truck Lines v. Western 18 || Conference of Teamsters, 686 F.2d 720, 721 (9th Cir. 1982). 19 Moreover, the policy of encouraging settlements is favored by the courts. National Union 20 || Fire Insurance Company v. Seafirst Corp., 891 F.2d 762, 768 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Ahern v. 21 || Central Pac. Freight Lines, 846 F.2d 47, 48 (9th Cir. 1988)). When a settlement between the 22 || parties is conditioned upon the district court’s grant of vacatur, this factor should be weighed and 23 || considered by the district court when balancing the equities. National Union Fire, supra, 891 F.2d 24 ||] — 25 || ' Extraordinary or exceptional circumstances are, however, required for an appellate court to vacate a district court’s judgment. U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 26 || U.S. 18, 115 S. Ct. 386, 130 L-Ed.2d 233 (1994). Notably, depending on which court is making the vacatur decision, the standard to be applied is different. Thus, a district court enjoys greater 27 || equitable discretion when reviewing its own judgments than does an appellate court operating at a distance. American Games, Ine. v. Trade Products, Inc., 142 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 1998). 28

SGAARD SMITH LIP

1 || at 768; Nestle Co. v. Chester’s Market, Inc., 756 F.2d 280 (2d Cir. 1985). 2\|I. LEGAL ARGUMENT(S) 3 Here, equitable considerations support the Parties’ joint request for vacatur, particularly 4 || since their settlement is conditioned upon vacatur. Primarily, the equities favor vacatur because 5 || the consequences and hardships of this Court’s refusal to vacate would be significant. This 6 || Court’s granting of the parties’ joint request for vacatur will bring pending and protracted appeal 7 || litigation to an end. Conversely, denial of the joint motion for vacatur will be counterproductive 8 || as it would lead to more litigation between the parties associated with the pending Ninth Circuit 9 || appeal. 10 Both Plaintiff and Defendants Malta and Miranda have limited resources and seek to avoid 11 || the substantial hardships imposed by a lengthy, costly, and uncertain appeal. See Nesle, supra, 12 || 756 F.2d at 282. The parties, therefore seek to strike a reasonable compromise. Under the 13 || settlement’s terms, Plaintiff will recover the full Judgment amount of $30,005, without subjecting 14 || Defendants Malta and Miranda to a Judgment against them and the imposition of punitive 15 || damages. If settlement is not achieved because of denial of the vacatur motion and the appeal is 16 || reinstated, both parties will face increased time, and costs associated with said appeal, the result of 17 || which is wholly uncertain at this time. 18 Moreover, the judicial and public policy interests in preserving the full effect and finality 19 || of judgments will not be thwarted by this Court granting the parties’ joint motion for vacatur. The 20 || Judgment does not advance a new point of law. Moreover, with vacatur, the desire for review of 21 || the legal and factual findings will become wholly moot, and the parties will achieve the needed 22 || and early certainty as to outcome. Vacatur will not affect the Court’s interest in preserving finality 23 || because presently the decisions of the District of Nevada on issues of excessive force and 24 || retaliation are more than sufficiently expansive and on point. See e. g. Coney v. Lozo, Case No. 25 || 2:23-cv-01645-CDS-EJY, 2024 WL 2271553, at *3 (D. Nev. May 20, 2024); see also e.g. Howard 26 || v. Foster, 208 F.Supp.3d 1152, 1159 (D. Nev. 2016). Others involved in constitutional violation 27 || litigation arising out of § 1983 will not be prejudiced by the vacatur of this Judgment, as other 28 || substantially similar precedent is available.

1 Additionally, other equitable considerations support the parties’ joint request for vacatur. 2 || Unlike other Ninth Circuit cases where the parties’ actions have voluntarily mooted the district 3 || court’s opinion, here, the Judgment is not moot because of the conditional settlement. National 4 || Union Fire, supra, 891 F.2d at 768; Ringsby, supra, 6a86 F.2d at 721. Thus, the issue before this 5 || Court is “whether to vacate to make the case moot.” National Union Fire, supra, 891 F.2d at 768. 6 || IV. CONCLUSION 7 Pursuant to the foregoing facts, precedent, and legal arguments, the parties respectfully 8 || submit that it is appropriate for this Court to vacate the March 12, 2026, Judgment in Favor of 9 || Courtney Motley to facilitate implementation of the parties’ settlement. 10 DATED this W day of o9¢. 11 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 12 13 Robe Freeman, Jr., Esq. 14 Nevada Bar No. 3062 E. Matthew Freeman, Esq. 15 Nevada Bar No. 14198 6385 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 600 16 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 7 Attorneys for Defendants Corrections Officer Matthew Malta 18 Corrections Officer Carlos Miranda 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 (78

LLP

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. 2 THEREBY CERTIFY that on the J_day of Aunwe_, 2026, I electronically filed the 3 || NOTICE OF JOINT MOTION OF ALL PARTIES TO VACATE JUDGMENT 4 ||/PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT with the Clerk of the Court through Case 5 ||Management/Electronic Filing System. COURTNEY MOTLEY 7 1|#1210895 High Desert State Prison 8 || P.O. Box 650 Indian Springs, Nevada 89070-0650 9 || Plaintiff in Proper Person 10 1] Employee WLEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 13 14 15 For the reasons stated in the Joint Motion of All Parties to Vacate 16 Judgment Purusant to Settlement, (ECF No. 168), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Motion is GRANTED. 17 18 19 20 a DATED June 24, 2026 22 ff 23 MM Gloria) M. Navarro 4 United States District Judge 25 26 27 78 RISBOIS

LLP mt