Gaj v. Wynn

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 DUSTIN GAJ, Derivatively on Behalf of Case No. 2:19-cv-505-KJD-DJA WYNN RESORTS, LIMITED, 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 9 v. 10 STEPHEN A. WYNN et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#115). Plaintiff 13 responded in opposition (#121) to which Defendants replied (#124). 14 I. Legal Standard 15 Summary judgment may be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to 16 interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no 17 genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a 18 matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 19 (1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of 20 material fact. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to 21 set forth specific facts demonstrating a genuine factual issue for trial. See Matsushita Elec. 22 Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 23 All justifiable inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 24 party. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. However, the nonmoving party may not rest upon the 25 mere allegations or denials of his or her pleadings, but he or she must produce specific facts, by 26 affidavit or other evidentiary materials as provided by Rule 56(e), showing there is a genuine 27 issue for trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). 28 1 IL. Analysis 2 This case arises from the same facts as the other shareholder derivative suit against Wynn 3 | Resorts in front of this Court. The facts and analysis of the Court’s order denying Defendant Dustin Gaj’s (“Gaj”) motion to intervene in Broussard v. Hagenbuch, No. 2:18-cv-0293-KJD- 5 | DJA, are incorporated into this order. Neither party alleges that there are any genuine issues of 6 | material fact. In Broussard, the Court determined that Gaj was not entitled to intervention to the 7 other derivative action. Additionally, the Court found that the state-court settlement was valid 8 | and negotiated by competent counsel. The parties considered the claim Gaj brought in this action 9 | when coming to a settlement agreement. Because the state-court settlement dismissed all other 10 | pending state or federal claims, including Gaj’s, the Court grants summary judgment for 11 | Defendants. 12 Il. Conclusion 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary 14| Judgment (#115) is GRANTED. 15 | Dated this 12th day of January, 2021. 16 vd 17 ee Kent J. Dawson 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-