Michael C. Sternberg v. Kimberly Farmer, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada addresses Plaintiff Michael C. Sternberg’s motions for entry of clerk’s default, reconsideration, to strike, a temporary restraining order, and a preliminary injunction. The Court denies all motions, concluding in part that certain defendants were not properly served, reconsideration and striking were unwarranted, and Plaintiff had not shown a likelihood of success on his constitutional claims.

Holdings

1. Entry of default was improper because the State Bar Defendants had filed responsive pleadings and otherwise defended the action.
2. Default could not be entered against Ford and Newby because plaintiff failed to establish that they were properly served, depriving the court of personal jurisdiction over them.
3. The court sua sponte extended the deadline for service on Ford and Newby by 45 days because plaintiff had attempted timely service, lacked prior notice of the defect, and was proceeding pro se.
4. Reconsideration was unwarranted because plaintiff identified no newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or intervening change in controlling law.
5. The motion to strike was denied because the challenged response and exhibits were not shown to contain redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.
6. Plaintiff was not entitled to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction because he failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of any claim.
7. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on his Section 1983 First Amendment claim against Smith-Pulsipher because he offered no evidence that she possessed actual authority to speak for the State and purported to exercise that authority on social media.
8. Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action for violations of the Nevada Constitution.

Questions Presented

1. Whether clerk's default should be entered against the State Bar Defendants when they filed a motion to dismiss, an answer, and responses to plaintiff's motions.
2. Whether clerk's default should be entered against Aaron Ford and Craig Newby when plaintiff failed to show that the individuals identified as 'Brittany & Rochelle' were authorized agents for service.
3. Whether the court should extend the service deadline for Ford and Newby.
4. Whether plaintiff established grounds for reconsideration of the order denying emergency relief.
5. Whether defendants' response to the motion for a temporary restraining order should be stricken under Rule 12(f).
6. Whether plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.

Disposition

other