Gould v. Trinity Services Group, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 STEVEN ERIC GOULD 6 Case No. 2:21-cv-00045-CDS-NJK Plaintiff, 7 Order Vv. 8 [Docket Nos. 67, 69] 9 TRINITY SERVICE GROUP, INC., et al, Defendant(s). 10 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for a settlement conference. Docket Nos. 11 67, 69. The Court has considered Plaintiff's motions and Defendants’ response. Docket Nos. 67, 12 3 69, 92. No reply is necessary. The motions can be resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78- 1. 14 Plaintiff requests the Court to set a settlement conference “in an attempt to close the 15 foregoing entitled action....” Docket No. 67 at 3; Docket No. 69 at 3. Defendants respond that 16 they “do not believe that a settlement conference would serve any useful purpose at this yuncture.” 17 Docket No. 92 at 1. 18 19 “The Court generally does not grant motions for settlement conferences that are opposed.” McCarty v. Roos, 2013 WL 5436578, at *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 27, 2013). Further, the Court is not 20 inclined to set a settlement conference that appears fruitless. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motions for 21 0 a settlement conference are DENIED. Docket Nos. 67, 69. IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: September 13, 2022. 25 NANCY J. KOPPE.“ 36 UNITED STATES. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28