The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
09-16427•Jo C. Dague, Individually and As Special Administrator of the Estate of Larry L. Dague v. Kevin Dumesic, Greg Hazen, Mike Horn, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
09-16427Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOct 29, 2010
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be*
cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Ronald B. Leighton, United States District Judge for**
the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JO C. DAGUE, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE ESTATE OF LARRY L. DAGUE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KEVIN DUMESIC, GREG HAZEN,
MIKE HORN, LAS VEGAS
METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants- Appellees.
No. 09-16427
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-0533-JCM-RJJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 7, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: RYMER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LEIGHTON , District**
Judge
FILED
OCT 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
Appellant Joe Dague appeals the District Court’s denial of reconsideration
of the magistrate’s order awarding attorney’s fees to appellees. The standard of
review is abuse of discretion. See United States v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Ins.
Co., 617 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1980).
Based on the record, the magistrate did not abuse his discretion by holding
that the correspondence via mail between the parties did not satisfy the “meet and
confer” requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) and D. Nev. R. 26-7(b). See
Shufflemaster, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D. Nev.
1996) Upon denying the motion to compel, it was within the magistrate’s
discretion to award attorney fees to appellees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B).
Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the reconsideration
of the magistrate’s order. The appellee’s request for attorney’s fees on the appeal
is denied because the appeal is not frivolous.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.