Johnson v. HILV Fee LLC

1 CA bar #: 310526 – pro hac vice admit The Williams Law Group 6273 Sunset Drive Suite D3 South Miami, Florida 33143 Telephone: (253) 970-1683 Email: [email protected] David Lee Phillips, Esq.

NV bar #: 538 – local counsel 700 S. 4th Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 595-9097 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff, Steven 9 Johnson 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA STEVEN JOHNSON Case No. 2:18-cv-01381-RFB-BNW Plaintiff, UNOPPOSED MOTION TO IDENTIFY/NAME 15 DOE DEFENDANTS 1 THROUGH 8 OUT OF v. DOES 1 TO 50 HOOTERS, INC.; HOOTERS CASINO HOTEL; HOOTERS OF AMERICA, LLC; NAVEGANTE GROUP, INC.; TRINITY HOTEL INVESTORS, LLC, and DOES 1 to 20 Defendant.

22 COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Steven Johnson (“Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned counsel and hereby submits this Unopposed Motion to Identify/Name Doe Defendants 1 through 8 out of Does 1 to 50 pursuant to Rule 7(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This motion is based on the Plaintiff’s discovery of the identity and/or partial identity of eight (8) of the currently named DOE Defendants and the Plaintiff’s indication in the Complaint that he would “ask leave of this Court t amend this complaint to show [the Doe] Defendants’ names and capacitie |}when the same have been ascertained.” See Complaint, @ 8 [DE 1]. Thi ||motion shall be further supported by the Memorandum of Points ar Authorities below, the record, and on such evidence and oral argument =< may be presented at the hearing on the motion.

Dated this 4th day of May 2020.

10 ||Respectfully submitted, THE WILLIAMS LAW GROUP 12 BY: Muhew ULY ame 3 Andrew Williams, Esq.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7 On July 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the above captioned action based upon claims for negligence, assault and battery, 19 to the nature of his injuries (beaten unconscious, fractured jaw □□ |Imultiple places) and the time in which the injuries occurred (ear!

21 morning hours while Plaintiff was asleep), the Plaintiff was unable t 22 tae identify the true identities of his assailants. This in turn led to tt Plaintiff filing a complaint, which listed defendants Does 1 to 50, □ unknown parties whom the Plaintiff was informed and believed, “ar 2% thereupon allege[d], that each of the Defendants designated herein as DOE [was] negligently, wantonly, recklessly, tortuously and unlawful!

□ referred to, and negligently, wantonly, recklessly, tortuously and unlawfully, proximately caused injuries and damages thereby to Plaintiff.” See Complaint ¶ 8 [DE 1].

5 On April 15, 2020, the Plaintiff was deposed by Defendants HILV Fee, LLC and NAV-115 E. Tropicana, LLC, (collectively, the “Hooters Defendants”), who are erroneously named HOOTERS CASINO HOTEL, HOOTERS OF AMERICA, LLC, NAVEGANTE GROUP, INC., and TRINITY HOTEL INVESTORS, LLC in the complaint.1 Shortly before the deposition commenced, the Plaintiff was provided with six (6) exhibits that were anticipated to be used in the deposition. One of these exhibits, Exhibit “F”, was a roughly 2- minute video clip that showed the Plaintiff being transported through the Hooters Casino Hotel (the “Hotel”) in a gurney by EMT services. The video clip also showed seven (7) police officers, who on information and belief, are employed by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, a metropolitan police department duly-organized under Chapter 280 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. Further on information and belief, these seven (7) police officers were involved and participated in the acts and/or omissions which caused some or all of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

22 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT Rule 10 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure “allows the substitution of named defendants for DOE defendants, relating back to The parties have agreed to enter into a stipulation to correct the misnomer as it pertains to the names of the Hooters Defendants; however, as of the time of the filing of this motion the stipulation had not yet been entered and ordered by this Court.

2 103 Nev. 608, 609, 747 P.2d 888, 889 (1987). Rule 10 states in pertinent part “[i]f the name of a defendant is unknown to the pleader, the defendant may be designated by any name. When the defendant’s true identity is discovered, the pleader should promptly substitute the actual defendant for a fictitious party.” NRCP 10(d).

A. Plaintiff Has Discovered the True Identity of Doe 1 Due to the head injuries that the Plaintiff sustained as alleged in the Complaint (a concussion and fractured jaw) and the time that he was assaulted (early in the morning while Plaintiff was asleep), the Plaintiff was unable to fully identify his assailants upon the filing of the Complaint. The Plaintiff being ignorant of the true names of his assailants designated certain defendants in the Complaint with fictitious names, DOES 1 to 50.

On April 15, 2020, after being provided with discovery from the Hooters Defendants, the Defendant for the first time since the commencement of this action had sufficient knowledge and information to identify the true name of Defendant Doe 1. Plaintiff identifies the defendant as follows: 22 Doe 1: Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.

B. Plaintiff Has Discovered the Partial Identity of Does 2 24 through 8 25 As stated above, the Plaintiff’s injuries as alleged in the Complaint included head trauma (a concussion and fractured jaw) and given the time that Plaintiff was assaulted (early in the morning while ability to fully identify his assailants when he filed the complaint.

3 Due to his ignorance of the true names of his assailants the Plaintiff designated certain defendants in the Complaint with fictitious names, DOES 1 to 50.

The Defendant was able to fully identify the true name of one of the DOE defendants on April 15, 2020 as discussed above, and he was able to partially identify the true names/identities of defendants DOES 2 through 8 on this same day for the first time since the commencement of this action. The Plaintiff partially identifies the defendants as follows: 13 Doe 2: Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officer A (“LVMP Officer A”); Doe 3: Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officer B (“LVMP Officer B”); Doe 4: Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officer C (“LVMP Officer C”); Doe 5: Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officer D (“LVMP Officer D”); Doe 6: Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officer E (“LVMP Officer E”); 19 Doe 7: Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officer F (“LVMP Officer F”); 20 Doe 8: Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officer G (“LVMP Officer G”); III. CONCLUSION 22 Based upon the foregoing points and authorities, the record, any exhibits and oral argument that is made on this motion, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant the Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Amend Complaint and Pleadings to Identify/Name Doe Defendants 1 through 8 out of Does 1 to 50.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorab: Court enter an Order that allows the Plaintiff to identify DOE 1 by it ||/true name, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; to replace DOES ||through 8 with their partially identified names, LVMP Officer(s) through G; to provide Plaintiff with 30 days to file an amended complair so as to allow further investigation into the true identities of DOES through 8, and to allow Plaintiff to replace the true names of DOES through 8, without further order of the Court should such be discovere within the prescribed 30-day period, and to grant any other and furthe relief deemed fair, equitable and appropriate by this Court.

Respectfully submitted, The Williams Law Group 14 Af: Dated: May 4, 2020 BY: MWachew Ubazme 15 ANDREW WILLIAMS, ESQ.

CA bar #: 310526 - pro hac vice admi 16 6273 Sunset Drive, Suite D-3 South Miami, Florida 33143 17 Telephone: (305) 916-1122 Email: [email protected] DAVID LEE PHILLIPS, ESQ.

19 NV bar #: 538 - local counsel th IT Is SO ORDERED 700 S. 4" Street 20 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 595-9097 21 DATED: May 05, 2020 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Steve Johnso 4 Les Ape pan 5 BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE □ CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE ; CONFERRED AND MOTION IS UNOPPOSED 2 Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any locé ||rules of this Court, I hereby certify that counsel for the movant hé |l|conferred with all parties who may be affected by the relief sought ; 5S ||this motion in a good faith effort to resolve the issues. Because tl motion does not impact the named Defendants, the Hooters Defendants, the llconfirmed on May 1, 2020 via email that they had no objection to tt || relief requested herein the Plaintiff’s motion.

10 |Ipated: May 4, 2020 BY: _ Aunchew ULobzme 1 ANDREW WILLIAMS, ESQ.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, a contractor of The Williams Law Group, herek certifies that on the 4th day of May 2020, a copy of the foregoir UNOPPOSED MOTION TO IDENTIFY/NAME DOE DEFENDANTS 1 THROUGH 8 OUT OF DOI ||1 TO 50 was served electronically to all parties of interest via th: 18 Court’s CM/ECF system as follows: 0 TYSON & MENDES, LLP THOMAS E. MCGRATH, ESQ.

2] CHRISTOPHER A. LUND, ESQ.

3960 Howard Hughes Parkway 22 Suite 600 73 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Email: [email protected] 24 Attorneys for Defendants: HILV Fee, LLC and NAV-115 E. Tropicana, LLC 26 /s/Osarumwense Ogbebor A contractor of The Williams Law Grov