Washburn v. Mesquite Gaming ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 3 Lonnie Washburn, Case No. 2:24-cv-00383-CDS-BNW 4 Plaintiff Order Resolving Pending Motions 5 v. 6 Mesquite Gaming, LLC, [ECF Nos. 22, 23, 26] 7 Defendant 8 9 This action was transferred to the District of Nevada from District of Utah in February 10 2024. ECF No. 30. On April 10, 2024, plaintiff Lonnie Washburn and defendant Mesquite 11 Gaming, LLC filed a status report wherein they identified motions that have been transferred to 12 this court that still need to be decided. ECF No. 37 at 2–3. The parties identified Mesquite 13 Gaming’s second motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19), and Washburn’s emergency motion for 14 prejudgment writ of attachment (ECF No. 23). However, Mesquite Gaming indicates that its 15 opposition to the emergency motion (ECF No. 24) provided analysis under Utah law and 16 therefore it requests an opportunity to submit additional briefing under Nevada law given the 17 change of venue. Id. at 3. 18 Under my inherent authority to manage the docket,1 I deny Washburn’s emergency 19 motion and request to submit it for decision. The court has determined that Washburn’s motion 20 for writ of attachment is not an emergency. See Local Rule 7-4(c) (“The court may determine 21 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 23 normal course. Should the motion be denied, Washburn may refile the motion for writ of 24 attachment and Mesquite Gaming may file a response under Nevada law and in accordance with 25 the local rules. 26 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 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26