United States v. 400 Acres of Land, more or less, situate in Lincoln County, State of Nevada

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedSeptember 17, 2019
Docket2:15-cv-01743
StatusUnknown

This text of United States v. 400 Acres of Land, more or less, situate in Lincoln County, State of Nevada (United States v. 400 Acres of Land, more or less, situate in Lincoln County, State of Nevada) 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.

Bluebook
United States v. 400 Acres of Land, more or less, situate in Lincoln County, State of Nevada, (D. Nev. 2019).

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 k*kK* 4 || UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:15-cv-01743-MMD-NJK 5 Plaintiff, ORDER V. 6 400 ACRES OF LAND, more or less, 7 || situate in Lincoln County, State of Nevada; and JESSIE J. COX, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 The Court granted the Government's motion to appoint a land commission in its 11 || order resolving the parties’ motions in limine. (ECF No. 497 at 8.) The Court then held a 12 || status conference at which the Court discussed the appointment of three land 13 || commissioners to serve on the land commission. (ECF No. 501.) The Court now advises 14 || the parties of the identity and qualifications of each prospective commissioner: (1) The 15 || Honorable Philip M. Pro; (2) The Honorable Peggy A. Leen; and (3) The Honorable Justice 16 || Michael L. Douglas.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(h)(2)(C). 17 The Court has confirmed that these individuals do not have any conflicts with the 18 || parties or the dates identified in the scheduling order (ECF No. 506). Accordingly, the 19 || Court determines that an alternate is not necessary. 20 It is therefore ordered that the parties’ objections related to the prospective land 21 || commissioners are due within seven days. 22 DATED THIS 17* day of September 2019. 23 24 A, ( ( ) 25 IRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 | es 1A copy of their curriculum vitae is attached to this order. Judge Pro’s professional 28 || time is billed at $525 per hour. Judge Leen and Justice Douglas’s professional time is billed at $500 per hour.

oe

Hon. Philip M. Pro (Ret.)

elas Case Manager | a Scott Parreno y T: 702-835-7806 " F: 702-437-5267 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, 11th Floor, Las Vegas, NV 89169 sparreno@jamsadr.com

lography Philip M. Pro (Ret.) joined JAMS following a distinguished federal judicial career spanning nearly 35 during which he earned a reputation for active case management, fairness, preparation, decisiveness, a deep understanding of the law. As a United States District Judge for more than 27 years, he presided a full range of cases involving intellectual property, commercial disputes, antitrust, securities, employment, actions, multi-district litigation, and many others. Prior to his service on the Bench, Judge Pro had a career as a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for Nevada, Deputy Attorney General for the State of Gaming Division and a civil litigator. the only full-time United States Magistrate Judge in Las Vegas, Nevada, from 1980 to 1987, Judge Pro also over a wide range of pre-trial matters and settlement conferences in virtually all civil cases filed in court, including the MGM Grand Hotel Fire Litigation, MDL 453. Pro has traveled to over 20 countries to promote the rule of law through educational programs teaching judicial administration and case management. His experience and global perspective prove vital in many different types of cases.

Experience and Qualifications Pro presided over and resolved by settlement, judgment, or trial, thousands of cases involving a range of issues, including: e Antitrust e Banking e Bankruptcy

AMVLINITIO □□ UMIGULIVO AULINTIO e Corporate governance e Employment and labor disputes e Intellectual property: Copyright, patent, trademark, unfair competition e International discovery e Medical malpractice e Multi-district litigation: Antitrust, employment, mass tort, securities e Personal injury e Products liability e Securities

Matters

e Held that Natural Gas Act preempts state-law claims challenging alleged industry price fixing practices that directly affect wholesale natural gas market. In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1566 e Multi-district litigation (MDL) case alleging antitrust conspiracy to artificially inflate energy prices and seeking remand to state court. /n re California Retail Natural Gas and Electricity Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1406 e Adjudicated gasoline retailers antitrust action against competitor alleging predatory pricing of gasoline in violation of Sherman Act and Clayton Act. Rebel Oil v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 957 F.Supp. 1184 (1997)

e Dispute related to authorization for banks to charge customers of other banks for usage of their automated teller machines (ATM). Valley Bank v. Plus Systems, 749 F.Supp. 223 e Breach of contract action against real estate companies arising from dispute regarding 2,000 acre development e Federal savings association action against former bank employees alleging breach of fiduciary duty and violation of Nevada Uniform Trade Secrets Act e Countless actions related to breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty e Numerous deficiency judgment actions on guarantees securing loans for real estate development e Numerous insurance coverage and bad faith claims e Settled action over liability of members of joint venture developing a large condominium complex following summary judgment e Adjudicated claims for interference with contractual relations arising in connection with real estate development auction

e Disputes alleging age and gender discrimination, and hostile work environment e Disputes arising from retaliation claims e MDL action related to allegations that nationwide retailer systematically failed to pay overtime hours and altered employees time records. In re Wal-Mart Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation, MDL 1735 Sex discrimination case brought against owner/publisher of newspaper e Numerous sexual harassment and discrimination cases e Former employees’ class actions alleging systematic wage and hour violations under federal and state law e Lawsuits alleging disability discrimination under Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) e Lawsuits brought by emplovees alleging failure to make reasonable accommodation for disabilities under

MVGULIVOe GAULINITIO GTI Viddoo AVLINITIO MINUYygETt UPIMOL Ga LGV VLOG FAL e Numerous actions brought under Labor Management Relations Act e Numerous actions alleging breach of the duty of fair representation e Actions involving employee group health coverage claims under ERISA and Environmental Litigation

e Suit by property developer and City of Las Vegas against railroad seeking remediation costs for railroad’s contamination of property. City Parkway v. Union Pacific Railroad, 911 F.Supp.2d 1022 (2012) e Construing claims by former employees working at classified United States Air Force facility against EPA alleging violations of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Kaza v. Browner, 932 F.Supp. 254 (1996) e Citizen suit brought under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Frost v. Perry, 919 F.Supp. 1459 (1995) e Lawsuit related to project to widen section of federal interstate highway. Sierra Club v. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 245 F.Supp.2d 1109 e Action by organizations in Mexico and the United States regarding project to modify the “All American Canal’ to prevent seepage of water to the Mexicali Valley. Consejo de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali v. U.S., 438 F.Supp.2d 1207 (2006) Construing claims related to water diversion, transportation, and storage rights and authority of Nevada State Engineer with respect thereto. U.S. v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 919 F.Supp. 1470 (1996) e Holding absolute FCC ban on proposed gaming advertisements violated broadcasters’ rights to commercial free speech. Valley Broadcasting v. U.S., 820 F.Supp. 519 (1993) e Construing claims by various county and city defendants in eminent domain proceeding relating to easement for construction of the Kern River Natural Gas Pipeline Property

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kasza v. Browner
932 F. Supp. 254 (D. Nevada, 1996)
Frost v. Perry
919 F. Supp. 1459 (D. Nevada, 1996)
United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co.
919 F. Supp. 1470 (D. Nevada, 1996)
Rebel Oil Co., Inc. v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
957 F. Supp. 1184 (D. Nevada, 1997)
Valley Bank of Nevada v. Plus System, Inc.
749 F. Supp. 223 (D. Nevada, 1989)
Valley Broadcasting Co. v. United States
820 F. Supp. 519 (D. Nevada, 1993)
Hilton Hotels Corp. v. ITT Corp.
978 F. Supp. 1342 (D. Nevada, 1997)
Coughlin v. Hilton Hotels Corp.
879 F. Supp. 1047 (D. Nevada, 1995)
Fortunet, Inc. v. Melange Computer Services
412 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (D. Nevada, 2005)
In Re Stratosphere Corp. Securities Litigation
66 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (D. Nevada, 1999)
Sierra Club v. United States Department of Transportation
245 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (D. Nevada, 2003)
City Parkway V, Inc. v. Union Pacific Railroad
911 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (D. Nevada, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. 400 Acres of Land, more or less, situate in Lincoln County, State of Nevada, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-400-acres-of-land-more-or-less-situate-in-lincoln-nvd-2019.