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

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided November 12, 2019·No. 2:15-cv-01743·Unknown

Opinion

5 * * *

6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:15-cv-01743-MMD-NJK

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 400 ACRES OF LAND, more or less, 9 situate in Lincoln County, State of Nevada; and JESSIE J. COX, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 The Court recently received the attached disclosure statements from Land 13 Commissioners the Honorable Philip M. Pro and the Honorable Peggy A. Leen.1 The Court 14 has reviewed the disclosures. The Court notes that Judge Pro indicates he is a partial 15 owner of JAMS, and that Judge Leen indicates she is not. The Court finds that nothing in 16 the disclosures necessitates the Court take any action at this time, but passes them on to 17 the parties through this order—for the parties’ consideration. 18 The Clerk of Court is directed to provide a copy of this order to the Land 19 Commissioners by email: (1) The Honorable Philip M. Pro; (2) The Honorable Peggy A. 20 Leen; and (3) The Honorable Justice Michael L. Douglas. 21 DATED THIS 12th day of November 2019. 22

23 MIRANDA M. DU 24 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25

26 1The Land Commissioners explain in a cover letter accompanying their disclosures that they are sending them out of an abundance of caution, and in response to the Ninth 27 Circuit’s decision in Monster Energy Co. v. City Beverages, LLC, 940 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2019). There, the Ninth Circuit held as a matter of first impression that arbitrators must 28 disclose ownership interests in arbitration organizations and those organizations’ business deals with parties to the arbitration. ® of:}e

Dear Chief Judge Du: On October 22, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an Opinion in Monster Energy Company v. City Beverages, LLC, 2019 WL 5382062, holding in a matter of apparent first impression that arbitrators must disclose ownership interests in arbitration organizations. Although the Circuit’s ruling may not directly address the circumstances of this case wherein we are appointed by you as Land Commissioners under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.1(h), we think it appropriate to disclose our respective ownership interests in JAMS. Therefore, we are enclosing a disclosure statement and declaration that would normally be provided as a JAMS neutral to you through Deputy Clerk, Peggie Vannozzi, of our respective ownership interests in JAMS for such use as you deem appropriate. We would be pleased to provide any additional information or answer any questions you may have at your convenience. Kindest regards,

Pega Uéen Philip M. Pro

® al ine LAND COMMISSION DICLOSURE CHECKLIST Arbitrator Disclosure Checklist pursuant to: Code of Ethics for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes e JAMS Ethical Guidelines for Arbitrators Case Title: United States of America vs. 400 Acres of Land, et al. Case No. 2:15-cv-01743-MMD-NJK JAMS Ref. #: 1260005540 Panelist Name: Peggy Leen for appointment as Land Commissioner under FRCP 71.1(h) Checklist supplements disclosure report 16A Yes No 1. Arbitrator or member of arbitrator’s family [The term “member of the arbitrator’s family” includes the arbitrator’s immediate family or member of the arbitrator’s household] is a party, a party’s spouse or domestic partner, an officer, director or trustee of a party? () (9 2. Arbitrator or member of arbitrator’s family is a lawyer in the arbitration, related to a lawyer in the arbitration or currently associated in the private practice of law with a lawyer in the arbitration? () 3. Arbitrator or a member of arbitrator’s family has or has had a significant personal relationship with any party or lawyer for a party? () (7 4. Arbitrator is serving or within preceding 5 years has served: (A) As a neutral arbitrator in another arbitration involving a party, lawyer for a party, or law firm for a party to the current arbitration? () (B) As a party-appointed arbitrator in another arbitration for either a party, lawyer for a party, or law firm for a party to the current arbitration? () (yo (C) As a neutral arbitrator in another arbitration in which s/he was selected by a person serving as a party-appointed arbitrator in the current arbitration? () ¢ yo (D) As a dispute resolution neutral other than an arbitrator in another pending or prior case involving a party, lawyer for a party, or law firm in the current arbitration. ( ) (yo 5. Arbitrator has or has had an attorney-client relationship with a party or lawyer for a party to the current arbitration, including representing the party; an officer, director or trustee of a party; or the arbitrator provided legal advice to a party or a lawyer in the arbitration concerning any matter involved in the arbitration? () 6. Arbitrator or member of the arbitrator’s family has or has had any other professional relationship with a party or lawyer for a party, including as an expert witness or consultant? () ¢ iy 7, Arbitrator or member of arbitrator’s family has a financial interest in a party? (The term “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, or a relationship as a director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party. [See, 28 U.S.CA. sec. 455.] () (yy 8. Arbitrator or member of arbitrator’s family has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts relevant to the arbitration? A person likely to be a material witness in the proceeding is deemed to have personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts. () ¢

Page 1 of 3

Yes No 9. Is there any other matter that: (A) Might cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt that the arbitrator would be able to be impartial? () ¢ (B) Leads the proposed arbitrator to believe there is a substantial doubt as to his or her capacity to be impartial, including, but not limited to, bias or prejudice toward a party, lawyer, or law firm in the arbitration? () (% (C) Otherwise leads the arbitrator to believe that his or her disqualification will further the interests of justice? () 10. Is the arbitrator not able to properly perceive the evidence or properly conduct the proceedings because of a permanent or temporary physical impairment? () ¢ x 11. Are there any constraints on the arbitrator’s availability known to the arbitrator that will interfere with his or her ability to commence or complete the arbitration in a timely manner? () ¢ x 12. Do you participate in social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn? () ¢ Xx 13. Is the Commissioner an owner panelist of JAMS? () ¢

If the arbitrator marked this question, "Yes," it is possible that one of the lawyers or law firms involved in this matter is in some way connected to the Arbitrator through this professional networking application. However, none of these contacts rises to the level of a prior business relationship that might cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt that the arbitrator would be able to be impartial, unless otherwise noted below. If the Land Commissioner has answered “yes” to any of the above questions, s/he will explain below and/or see attached rider: Question #: Explanation:

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

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

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) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.