Washburn v. Mesquite Gaming

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Lonnie Washburn, Case No. 2:24-cv-00383-CDS-BNW 4 Plaintiff Order Resolving Pending Motions 5 v. Mesquite Gaming, LLC, [ECF Nos. 22, 23, 26] 7 Defendant 9 This action was transferred to the District of Nevada from District of Utah in February 2024. ECF No. 30. On April 10, 2024, plaintiff Lonnie Washburn and defendant Mesquite Gaming, LLC filed a status report wherein they identified motions that have been transferred to this court that still need to be decided. ECF No. 37 at 2–3. The parties identified Mesquite Gaming’s second motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19), and Washburn’s emergency motion for prejudgment writ of attachment (ECF No. 23). However, Mesquite Gaming indicates that its opposition to the emergency motion (ECF No. 24) provided analysis under Utah law and therefore it requests an opportunity to submit additional briefing under Nevada law given the change of venue. Id. at 3.

18 Under my inherent authority to manage the docket,1 I deny Washburn’s emergency motion and request to submit it for decision. The court has determined that Washburn’s motion for writ of attachment is not an emergency. See Local Rule 7-4(c) (“The court may determine whether any matter submitted as an ‘emergency’ is, in fact, an emergency.”).

22 Mesquite Gaming’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint will be addressed in the normal course. Should the motion be denied, Washburn may refile the motion for writ of attachment and Mesquite Gaming may file a response under Nevada law and in accordance with the local rules.

1 “The United States Supreme Court has held that federal district courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets[.]” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 41 (2016).

1 Further, the parties did not indicate that Washburn’s motions titled “request to submit for decision” (ECF Nos. 22, 26) should be considered by the court. These requests appear to have been submitted in accordance with the local rules in the District of Utah. There is no 4] analogue rule in this district. Accordingly, these motions are denied without prejudice.

5 Conclusion 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's requests to submit for decision [ECF Nos. 22, 7|| 26] are DENIED without prejudice.

8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's emergency motion for prejudgment ex parte writ of attachment [ECF No. 23] is DENIED without prejudice.

10 Dated: April 11, 2024 7} athe B Uinigeet States District Judge