Rowe v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
This text of Rowe v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Rowe v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 LYSSA S. ANDERSON Nevada Bar No. 5781 2 RYAN W. DANIELS Nevada Bar No. 13094 3 KRISTOPHER J. KALKOWSKI Nevada Bar No. 14892 4 KAEMPFER CROWELL 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-7000 6 Fax: (702) 796-7181 landerson@kcnvlaw.com 7 rdaniels@kcnvlaw.com kkalkowski@kcnvlaw.com 8 Attorneys for Defendants 9 LVMPD, Fred Boncy, Harrison Porter and Robert Steinbach
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
12 MICHAEL ROWE , Case No.: 2:21-cv-00724-JAD-BNW
13 Plaintiff, vs. LVMPD DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 14 STAY DISCOVERY LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE 15 DEPARTMENT, et al.,
16 Defendants.
18 Defendants, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Fred Boncy, Harrison Porter 19 and Robert Steinbach (“LVMPD Defendants”), by and through their counsel, Kaempfer Crowell, 20 move to stay discovery in this case until the Court resolves LVMPD Defendants’ pending 21 Motion for Dismiss, (ECF No. 9). A stay is warranted because LVMPD Defendants’ Motion to 22 Dismiss will resolve all claims in this matter. LVMPD Defendants attempted to meet and confer 23 with Plaintiff before moving to stay proceedings. Plaintiff initially agreed but later stated he 24 would not sign the stipulation agreeing to the stay. As such, this Motion is necessary. 1 DATED this 8th day of September, 2021. 2 KAEMPFER CROWELL 3 By: /s/ Lyssa S. Anderson 4 LYSSA S. ANDERSON (Nevada Bar No. 5781) RYAN W. DANIELS (Nevada Bar No. 13094) 5 KRISTOPHER J. KALKOWSKI (Nevada Bar No. 14892) 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 6 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Attorneys for Defendants 7 LVMPD, Fred Boncy, Harrison Porter and Robert teinbach 8 9 Exhibit List 10 Exhibit A: August 12, 2021 E-mail from Plaintiff to Kris Kalkowski 11 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 12 I. BACKGROUND 13 This case arises from Plaintiff’s allegations that he received improper medical care after 14 his femur was broken. Plaintiff went to make a police report where he encountered Officer 15 Bouncy initially and then Sgt. Porter and Detective Steinbach. Plaintiff was referred to an 16 attorney by the LVMPD Defendants as Plaintiff wanted Officers to investigate the various 17 medical providers under NRS 200.495; a civil statute. Plaintiff now brings suit alleging that his 18 First Amendment rights were violated. It is the position of the LVMPD Defendants that 19 Plaintiff’s claim is not supported by law and should be dismissed. 20 A. Procedural History 21 Plaintiff filed suit on May 3, 2021. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a single claim against 22 the LVMPD Defendants for a First Amendment violation. The LVMPD Defendants were served 23 with the Complaint and filed a Motion to Dismiss. [ECF No. 9]. The LVMPD Defendants 24 contend that Plaintiff’s claim fails because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 1 granted. [ECF No. 9]. 2 Plaintiff filed a Response to the Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 13] and the LVMPD 3 Defendants filed a Reply, [ECF No. 15]. Plaintiff has also filed two separate Motions for 4 Sanctions [ECF Nos. 16 and 18] relating to the Motion to Dismiss. This Court has already
5 denied the first Motion for Sanctions at ECF No. 16. [ECF No. 17]. 6 There currently is no Scheduling Order in place and the Motion to Dismiss is fully 7 briefed and pending. 8 B. Meet-and-Confer Attempt 9 The LVMPD Defendants’ Counsel, Kris Kalkowski, had a telephone call with Plaintiff 10 on the afternoon of August 12, 2021. A proposed Stipulation to Stay Discovery pending the 11 outcome of the Motion to Dismiss was discussed. Plaintiff agreed to review and consider a 12 Stipulation. A draft Stipulation was prepared and e-mailed to Plaintiff for consideration. That 13 same night, Plaintiff responded to Counsel’s e-mail not approving the Stipulation but advising he 14 intended to file another Motion for Sanctions. Exhibit A. Now, the LVMPD Defendants bring
15 this Motion. 16 II. ARGUMENT 17 LVMPD Defendants seek a brief stay of discovery in this case until the Court resolves 18 the fully briefed and pending Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 9]. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 26 authorizes the Court to enter such a stay, and this Court has broad discretion in making that 20 decision. In re Netflix Antitrust Litig., 506 F. Supp. 2d 308, 321 (N.D. Cal. 2007); Rosenstein v. 21 Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., No. 2:13-cv-1443-JCM-VCF, 2014 WL 2835074, at *2 (D. Nev. June 23, 22 2014). Three factors guide the Court’s decision: (a) the pending motion is potentially dispositive 23 of all claims in the case; (b) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional
24 discovery; and (c) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially 1 dispositive motion “and finds the motion sufficiently meritorious to warrant a stay.” Martinez v. 2 Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, No. 2:20-cv-00618-JCM-NJK, 2020 WL 3166611, at *1 (D. 3 Nev. June 9, 2020) (citing Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 4 2013)).
5 A. The Pending Motion Is Likely Dispositive of the Sole Claim in This Case. 6 The LVMPD Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss lays out two bases as to why Plaintiff’s sole 7 claim for First Amendment violation is futile. First, as stated above, Plaintiff’s claim involves 8 LVMPD Officers not taking a police report from him related to his allegations that he received 9 improper medical care causing him damage. The Motion to Dismiss cites to various controlling 10 law as to why Plaintiff’s claim fails. For example, Plaintiff’s complaint concerning his medical 11 care is not an issue of “public concern” but is merely his own concern. And, LVMPD is not the 12 proper place for investigation into possible claims of “health insurance fraud”; the Commissioner 13 and Attorney General are. [ECF No. 9]. 14 B. LVMPD Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Does Not Require Additional 15 Discovery. 16 No party needs additional discovery to resolve the issues raised in the LVMPD 17 Defendants’ to Dismiss. This Motion requires review only of Plaintiff’s allegations on their face 18 and in the light most favorable to him. See Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th 19 Cir. 2012) (“Analysis under Rule 12(c) is substantially identical to analysis under Rule 12(b)(6) 20 because, under both rules, a court must determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint, 21 taken as true, entitle the plaintiff to a legal remedy.”) (internal quotations omitted). As a result, 22 granting a stay would not deprive either party from facts or evidence needed to advance this case 23 on its merits.
24 ] C. LVMPD Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Has a High Likelihood of Success on Its Merits and Is Unopposed. 3 Plaintiff's sole claim simply cannot survive the Motion to Dismiss. Indeed, □□□□□□□□□□□
4 Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 13], fails to present any legal arguments in
; opposition to the Motion. [ECF No. 15]. Plaintiff merely reasserts his allegations from the
‘ Complaint. Plaintiff's lack of a substantive response bolsters the fact that Plaintiff's claim is
related to a private matter and not a matter of “public concern” making it impossible to proceed.
I. CONCLUSION
9 The parties have not yet engaged in discovery and there has been no Scheduling Order
10 entered. Because this matter involves a sole claim, even if it were to survive the pending Motion
to Dismiss, there will be minimal discovery.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rowe v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowe-v-las-vegas-metropolitan-police-department-nvd-2021.