Warren v. Hilton Grand Vacations

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Allanna Warren, Case No. 2:23-cv-00988-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Hilton Grand Vacations 9 Defendant. 10 11 This is an employment action arising out of Plaintiff’s allegations that, while working for 12 Defendant Hilton Grand Vacations, her fellow employees and other third parties stalked her. 13 Plaintiff moves the Court to set an early neutral evaluation (ECF No. 8), for clarification 14 regarding a status report (ECF No. 17), and to disqualify Defendant’s counsel (ECF No. 34). 15 Defendant moves to stay discovery. (ECF No. 43). The Court denies all four motions. 16 I. Discussion. 17 A. Plaintiff’s motion for an early neutral evaluation. 18 Plaintiff moves the Court to set an early neutral evaluation (“ENE”) under Local Rule 16- 19 6. However, the Court has dismissed the only claims that would qualify the action for an ENE: 20 Plaintiff’s Americans with Disability Act and Vocational Rehabilitation Act claims. (ECF No. 55 21 at 8-10). While Plaintiff has appealed this decision and has until November 22, 2023 to file an 22 amended complaint, at this stage there are no claims that would qualify the case for an ENE. The 23 Court thus denies Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. 24 B. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification. 25 Plaintiff’s motion asks the Court to “clarify it’s [sic] expectation of what is required of the 26 upcoming Joint Status Report due July 28, 2023.” (ECF No. 17). However, Plaintiff filed her 27 own status report (ECF No. 16) and a reply in support of that status report (ECF No. 29). 1 Because Plaintiff has already filed her status report, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for 2 clarification as moot. 3 C. Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Defendant’s counsel. 4 Plaintiff moves to disqualify Defendant’s counsel, arguing that Defendant’s counsel is 5 representing another entity Plaintiff is suing in another case. (ECF No. 34). Plaintiff asserts that 6 this is a conflict of interest. However, Plaintiff lacks standing to seek disqualification on these 7 grounds. See De Dios v. International Realty & Investments, 641 F.3d 1071, 1077 (9th Cir. 8 2011); see Hernandez v. Guglielmo, 796 F.Supp.2d 1285, 1290 (D. Nev. July 8, 2011) (“[w]here 9 the attorney’s alleged ethical violation involves a conflict of interest, the general rule is that only 10 current and former clients have standing to seek disqualification.”). The Court thus denies her 11 motion. 12 D. Defendant’s motion to stay discovery. 13 Defendant moves to stay discovery pending the outcome of its motion to dismiss. (ECF 14 No. 43). However, the Court granted that motion to dismiss on October 23, 2023. (ECF No. 55). 15 The Court thus denies Defendant’s motion to stay as moot. 16 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to set an early neutral 18 evaluation (ECF No. 8) is denied without prejudice. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for clarification (ECF No. 17) is 20 denied as moot. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify counsel (ECF No. 34) 22 is denied. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 43) is 24 denied as moot. 25 26 DATED: November 1, 2023 27 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS