Streblow et al v. Club 180 et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CHUCK STREBLOW, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CLUB 180, et al.,
Defendants.
8:25CV241
ORDER
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Compel
Mediation. (Filing No. 256). Plaintiffs’ affirmatively state therein that all Defendants have
been served, that they contacted counsel and invited them to mediation, and that now is an
appropriate time to mediate before the “costly briefing process is imposed upon 24 parties
and even costlier and more time consuming discovery and class certification.”1 (Filing No.
256). For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
As an initial matter, Plaintiffs makes several representations in the motion that cause
concern. First, Plaintiffs affirmatively state that all the defendants have now been served,
but that is then immediately contradicted by stating that the final three defendants are
“being served by publication 11/28/25-12/16/25.” (Filing No. 256). The court authorized
service by publication pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-517.02 as to Defendants Michael
Elaya, Nicholas Scalise, and David Ehkdahl on November 21, 2025. (Filing No. 250).
1 Plaintiffs also state that they would submit a declaration in support of its motion, but no such declaration
was filed.
8:25-cv-00241-JFB-RCC Doc # 257 Filed: 12/03/25 Page 1 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

However, pursuant to that section, “service is not ‘made’ until the third publication, and
prior to the third publication, a defendant is ‘not served’…” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
v. Allstate Ins. Co., 268 Neb. 439, 447, 684 N.W.2d 14, 21 (2004). Plaintiffs have not
complied with the previous court order requiring notice to be filed with the court
confirming that all defendants have been served, nor could they until at least December 16,
2025.
Plaintiffs also erroneously caption the motion as “unopposed,” but it appears on the
face of the motion there was little effort to engage in any meaningful conferral process, nor
does it appear the motion is actually “unopposed.” Plaintiffs’ counsel represents that he
sent an email to all Defendants on November 20, 2025, inviting them to participate in
mediation. He then threatened that if they did not respond by November 25, 2025, he would
assume there were no objections. But again, three defendants have yet to be served, nor has
counsel for those defendants voluntarily appeared. Plaintiffs’ counsel then took the
defendants’ silence as approval (with the exception of Defendant Koca who apparently did
oppose), which simply does not constitute a good faith meaningful effort to confer.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), an attorney’s signature on pleadings, written
motions, and other papers filed with the court, confirms that the issue is, among other
things, “not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary
delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation” and that the “factual contentions have
evidentiary support[.]” It is well established, of course, that sanctions can be imposed if
the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1). In that vein,
the court expressly cautions the parties and their counsel to consider carefully how their
filings are captioned and represented to the court, as they are bound by those
representations. See also Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. §3-503.3 (Candor toward the tribunal).
The court will not hesitate in imposing necessary sanctions for future violations, nor will
the court tolerate in this matter unnecessary infighting between the attorneys at the expense
of securing a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of this proceeding. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 1; see also Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. §3-503.4 (Fairness to opposing party and counsel).
8:25-cv-00241-JFB-RCC Doc # 257 Filed: 12/03/25 Page 2 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

Given the more than 250 filings already made in this case, the court’s concerns expressed
herein are not without merit.
This is not to say that mediation as proposed by Plaintiffs is a bad idea, and it is
certainly encouraged. But the court expects the parties to confer in good faith when
discussing those matters. Pursuant to the District of Nebraska’s approved mediation plan,
“any district, bankruptcy, or magistrate judge may by order refer a case to mediation when
the judge determines the nature of the case and the amount in controversy make resolution
of the case by mediation a practical possibility.” See NEGenR 1.2(g). It is highly doubtful
that resolution by mediation at this time, especially when not all named defendants have
been served, is a practical possibility. Certainly the attorneys may contact one another and
have those discussions without the court’s involvement, but invoking the court’s power to
order mediation now seems premature. The request of course can be renewed at the
appropriate time and when the court can determine that the nature of the case and the
amount in controversy makes resolution by mediation a practical possibility.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Mediation (Filing No. 256) is denied.
Dated this 3rd day of December, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Ryan C. Carson
United States Magistrate Judge
8:25-cv-00241-JFB-RCC Doc # 257 Filed: 12/03/25 Page 3 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>