Sitivong v. United States

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 17, 2025
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00169
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JUAnSitOedN S FtaRteIsE ARtStOorNne y 2 District of Nevada Nevada Bar No. 7709 3 R. THOMAS COLONNA 4 Assistant United States Attorney 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 388-6336 6 Richard.colonna@usdoj.gov 7 Attorneys for the United States 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 Case No. 2:22-cv-00169-APG-DJA 11 Manichanh Sitivong, 12 Plaintiff, Stipulation to Vacate Settlement Conference 13 v. 14 United States of America; DOES I through 15 X, inclusive; ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES, I through X, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 This matter has been ordered for a Settlement Conference on February 18, 2025. 19 ECF No. 90. This matter has previously had an Early Neutral Evaluation session held on 20 October 27, 2023, in front of Judge Brenda Weksler. Presentations were made by both 21 parties and offers and counteroffers were exchanged. A settlement was not reached. Since 22 that time, this case has passed to a couple separate attorneys after the unfortunate passing 23 of Dennis Prince. The parties in this matter remain too far apart for a settlement conference 24 to be productive and are ready to proceed to trial. Further, the United States believes the 25 evidence does not support the damages award that Plaintiff is claiming and has informed 26 counsel of its determination so as not to violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1). See Travelers Prop. 27 Cas. Co. of Am. v. Las Vegas Twp. Constables Off., No. 2:12-cv-01922-JCM-VCF, 2013 WL 28 1 3975664 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2013), No. 2:12-cv-01922-JCM-VCF (D. Nev. 2013). The United 2 States has no interest in wasting Plaintiff’s time nor the Court’s time. 3 Settlement of cases prior to the filing of dispositive motions and trial briefs benefits 4 the court and the parties by securing just, speedy, and inexpensive determinations consistent 5 with Rule 1. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485 (D. Ariz. 2003). Federal Rule 6 of Civil Procedure 16 authorizes the courts to conduct pretrial settlement conferences. Fed. 7 R. Civ. P. 16(a)(5); see also Okonkwo v. Glendale Union High Sch. Dist., No. CV-08-0633-PHX- 8 MHM, 2009 WL 536568 (D. Ariz. Mar. 4, 2009). “The purpose of a settlement conference 9 is to facilitate a settlement or to narrow the disparity between the parties by the candid input 10 of a neutral, disinterested judicial officer.” Pitman, 216 F.R.D. at 485. Although parties 11 cannot be compelled to settle a case, a court may issue any just order, including an order 12 requiring the payment of reasonable expenses and attorney fees, “if a party or its 13 attorney . . . is substantially unprepared to participate – or does not participate in good 14 faith” in a settlement conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). Rule 16 “was not designed as a 15 means for clubbing the parties – or one of them – into involuntary compromise” and it is 16 unreasonable for a court to force parties or their counsel and representatives to incur 17 unnecessary attorney fees and travel expenses to participate in a settlement conference 18 knowing in advance the settlement conference will be futile. See, e.g., Best W. Int’l, Inc. v. 19 Melb. Hotel Invs., L.L.C., No. CV-06-2276-PHX-MHM, 2008 WL 2945513 (D. Ariz. July 25, 20 2008). “The same rationale applies when the parties agree to participate in a settlement 21 conference knowing in advance the settlement conference will be futile.” Melancon v. 22 Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., 2010 WL 116369687, 2:08-cv-00212-RCJ-RJJ (D. Nev. 2010). 23 Respectfully, if the Court were to schedule a settlement conference, the United States 24 and Plaintiff would of course show up and participate but their positions and how they 25 value the case would not change. See Sherwin v. Infinity Auto Ins. Co., 2013 WL 1182204, No. 26 2:11-cv-0043-MMD-GWF (D. Nev. 2013); see also A.T. Reynolds & Sons, Inc., 452 B.R. 374, 27 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“It is well-settled that a court cannot force a party to 1 || settle, nor may it invoke ‘pressure tactics’ designed to coerce a settlement.”); see also 2 || Acquisto v. Manitowoc Fsg Operations, No. 11-CV-00803(A)(M), 2012 WL 4722028, at *3 3 ||(W.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2012) (“[A]lthough a court may require parties to appear for a 4 settlement conference, (citation omitted) it may not coerce a party into making an offer to 5 || settle.”) 6 The parties hereby stipulate and agree that the scheduled settlement conference 7 scheduled for February 18, 2025, be vacated. 8 Respectfully submitted this 16th day of January 2025. 9 10 GOLIGHTLY & THE702FIRM, JASON FRIERSON PLLC United States Attorney 11 /s/ Mike Kane /s/ R. Thomas Colonna 12 || MICHAEL C. KANE R. THOMAS COLONNA Nevada Bar No. 10096 Assistant United States Attorney 13 BRADLEY J. MYERS Attorneys for the United States 14 || Nevada Bar No. 8857 THOMAS N. BECKOM 15 || Nevada Bar No. 12554 8335 W. Flamingo Road 16 || Las Vegas, NV 89147 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff 18 IT IS SO er FP) 19 ><\ AY DANIEL J. ALBREGTS | 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 DATED: January 17, 2025 22 23 24 25 26 27 28