From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arevalo v. Castro

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
May 12, 2016
3:15-cv-00407-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. May. 12, 2016)

Opinion

3:15-cv-00407-RCJ-WGC

05-12-2016

ANDREW AREVALO, Plaintiff, v. JEFF CASTRO et al., Defendants.


ORDER

This is a prisoner civil rights case. Pending before the Court is an Emergency Motion to Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 18). For the reasons given herein, the Court denies the motion.

Defendants filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel based on allegations of an ethical breach. Plaintiff's deadline for responding to the motion is May 20, 2016. (See ECF No. 16). Pending before the Court is also Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court. (See ECF No. 5). Plaintiff urges the Court to rule on the motion to remand before addressing the motion to disqualify. Plaintiff also asks the Court to stay the proceedings in the case until a grievance filed with the State Bar of Nevada, which addresses the alleged ethical breach, is resolved.

The Court will not stay the proceedings for two reasons. First, the delay would be indefinite and possibly prolonged. According to counsel for the Bar, the Bar's investigation will "probably" be presented to a screening panel by about the end of June. (See Correspondence, 12, ECF No. 18-1). But after a screening panel does hear the matter, it can hold it over for further investigation or file a written complaint for a formal hearing, which would further delay a decision. (See Disciplinary Rules of Procedure, State Bar of Nevada, Rule 8). Second, the State Bar's decision will not necessarily resolve the issues involved in the motion to disqualify. In addition to the alleged ethical breach, the motion to disqualify and accompanying evidence raise other issues of possible misconduct involving "misrepresentation" and "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." (See Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(c)-(d)). The Court denies the motion to stay the case. The Court will proceed with all aspects of the case, including the motion to remand, unless and until Plaintiff's counsel is disqualified.

CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED that the Emergency Motion to Stay (ECF No. 18) is DENIED. Dated this 12th day of May 2016. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/_________

ROBERT C. JONES

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Arevalo v. Castro

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
May 12, 2016
3:15-cv-00407-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. May. 12, 2016)
Case details for

Arevalo v. Castro

Case Details

Full title:ANDREW AREVALO, Plaintiff, v. JEFF CASTRO et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: May 12, 2016

Citations

3:15-cv-00407-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. May. 12, 2016)