Opinion
3:24-cv-05225-DGE
09-16-2024
JENNIFER DEGROSS and SHANE DEGROSS, Plaintiffs, v. ROSS HUNTER, in his personal capacity and in his official capacity as Secretary of the Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families, NATALIE GREEN, in her official capacity as Assistant Secretary of Child Welfare Field Operations, RUBEN REEVES, in his official capacity as Assistant Secretary of Licensing, and JEANINE TACCHINI, in her official capacity as Senior Administrator of Foster Care Licensing, Defendants.
ROBERT W. FERGUSON Attorney General MARKO PAVELA, WSBA 49160 MADELINE EBEL, WSBA No. 56980 JENNIFER R. HERNANDEZ, WSBA No. 36131 Assistant Attorneys General DANIEL JUDGE, WSBA 17392 CARISSA A. GREENBERG, WSBA 41820 Senior Counsel Attorneys for Defendants Ross Hunter, Natalie Green, Ruben Reeves and Jeanine Tacchini Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse* VA Bar No. 96040 Alliance Defending Freedom Jonathan A. Scruggs* AZ Bar No. 030505 Counsel for Plaintiff *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Conrad Reynoldson WA Bar No. 48187 Washington Civil & Disability Advocate Counsel for Plaintiff
ROBERT W. FERGUSON Attorney General MARKO PAVELA, WSBA 49160 MADELINE EBEL, WSBA No. 56980 JENNIFER R. HERNANDEZ, WSBA No. 36131 Assistant Attorneys General DANIEL JUDGE, WSBA 17392 CARISSA A. GREENBERG, WSBA 41820 Senior Counsel Attorneys for Defendants Ross Hunter, Natalie Green, Ruben Reeves and Jeanine Tacchini
Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse* VA Bar No. 96040 Alliance Defending Freedom Jonathan A. Scruggs* AZ Bar No. 030505 Counsel for Plaintiff *Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Conrad Reynoldson WA Bar No. 48187 Washington Civil & Disability Advocate Counsel for Plaintiff
STIPULATED MOTION TO STAY
THE HONORABLE DAVID G. ESTUDILLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CHIEF JUDGE
I. MOTION
Pursuant to Local Civil Rules 7(d)(1) and 10(g), the parties to the above-captioned case, by and through their undersigned attorneys, have stipulated to and hereby jointly request a stay of proceedings in this matter, and in support thereof, further state as follows:
1. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendants on March 22, 2024 alleging Defendants failed to renew their foster-care license in violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Dkt. No. 1.
2. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 6, 2024, arguing that Plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. Dkt. No. 13.
3. Plaintiffs responded to the Defendants' motion to dismiss on June 10, 2024, and requested the Court grant jurisdictional discovery to address the issue of standing. Dkt. No. 22.
4. The Court entered an order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and granted additional time for the parties to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Dkt. No. 25.
5. On July 19, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for an additional fourmonth extension for Initial Deadlines and Scheduling Conference dates in order for the parties to focus on jurisdictional discovery related to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 26.
6. The Court granted the Defendants' motion on August 2, 2024, and set Initial Case Deadlines and Scheduling Conference dates for December 2024. Dkt. No. 27.
7. The parties have since engaged in jurisdictional discovery related to Defendants' motion to dismiss.
8. The parties have also engaged in discussions about the potential value of Plaintiffs submitting a new foster-care license application.
9. Plaintiffs' previous foster-care license has expired.
10. Plaintiffs are now working with their preferred child-placing agency, Olive Crest, to complete and submit a new application.
11. Pending the outcome of that application, these efforts have the potential to resolve this litigation.
12. Staying proceedings pending Plaintiffs' current application process could substantially simplify proceedings. A grant of licensure could lead to settlement. And a denial of licensure would obviate the need for further jurisdictional discovery.
13. The parties ask for a 120-day stay and deadline for the parties to reach a settlement or to update the court about the application process and to request additional time as necessary.
14. The parties will promptly inform the Court of any material developments, including a potential settlement, as soon as practicable.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly request that their Stipulated Motion be granted, that the Court order the proceedings in this matter stayed for 120 days.
II. STIPULATION
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, through their undersigned counsel, that this Court should enter an order providing that:
1. All proceedings in this matter are stayed and the parties are instructed to update the Court no later than January 7, 2025 on the status of a potential settlement.
2. All case deadlines from the Scheduling Order, Dkt. #27, shall be stricken. It is SO AGREED this 16th day of September, 2024.
ORDER
Having reviewed the foregoing stipulation and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. All proceedings in this matter are stayed and the parties are instructed to update the Court no later than January 7, 2025 on the status of a potential settlement.
2. All case deadlines from the Scheduling Order, Dkt. #27, are stricken.
IT IS SO ORDERED.