Hackett v. Feeney

Full title: SANDY HACKETT, Plaintiff(s), v. RICHARD FEENEY, et al., Defendant(s)

Court: United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Nov 23, 2010

2:09-cv-2075-RLH-LRL (D. Nev. Nov. 23, 2010)

Opinion

2:09-cv-2075-RLH-LRL.

November 23, 2010

ORDER

ROGER HUNT, District Judge

Before the Court are two Orders (##79, 90) entered by the Honorable Lawrence R. Leavitt, regarding Plaintiff's Motion to (1) Disqualify Greenberg Traurig, LLP; (2) Disqualify Mark Tratos as Trial Counsel; (3) for Surrender of Client Files of Sandy Hackett; and (4) for Leave to Take Mark Tratos' Deposition (#54). Order #79 was the original order issued by Judge Leavitt in response to the motion. Order #90 was the product of a subsequent motion (#81) by Defendants seeking to Vacate a Portion of Order (#79), which Judge Leavitt granted, deciding he had committed clear error in a portion of Order #79.

Plaintiff filed Objections¹ to Judge Leavitt's Order (#79), (See #82), in accordance with Local Rule IB 3-1 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Defendants filed an Opposition (#88) to the Objections, and this matter was referred for consideration. Because the Judge Leavitt's Order #90 is an extension and correction of #79, and is based on the same findings and conclusions, the Court will apply Plaintiff's Objections and Defendant's Opposition thereto as the arguments regarding the issues seem a logical extension.

1 Plaintiff additionally styles the Objections as a Motion to Set Aside the Magistrate Judge's October 18, 2010 Order. However, 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 3-1 only make provision for objections or a request for reconsideration by a District Judge of a Magistrate Judge's Order. The rules governing regular motions do not apply. No reply is permitted. This Court will consider the matter under the provisions of that statute and Local Rule.

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record in this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C) and Local Rule IB 3-1 and determines that the Orders of Magistrate Judge Leavitt are not clearly erroneous nor contrary to law and should be affirmed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Leavitt's Orders (##79, 90) are AFFIRMED, Plaintiff's Objections (#82) are overruled, and Plaintiff's Motion to (1) Disqualify Greenberg Traurig, LLP; (2) Disqualify Mark Tratos as Trial Counsel; (3) for Surrender of Client Files of Sandy Hackett; and (4) for Leave to Take Mark Tratos' Deposition (#54) is DENIED.

Dated: November 23, 2010.