Opinion
2:22-cv-592-RFB-EJY
08-15-2023
JEREMY JOHN HALGAT, an individual Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
Jacob A. Bennett New York State Bar No. 5753744 Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Constitutional and Specialized Tort Litigation Attorney for Defendant the United States BRIAN M. BOYNTON Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Division C. SALVATORE D'ALESSIO, JR. Director Torts Branch, Civil Division ANDREA W. MCCARTHY Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division JACOB A. BENNETT Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division Constitutional and Specialized Tort Litigation Attorneys for Defendants the United States MELANIE A. HILL Nevada Bar No. 8796 Attorneys for Plaintiff Jeremy John Halgat
Jacob A. Bennett New York State Bar No. 5753744 Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Constitutional and Specialized Tort Litigation Attorney for Defendant the United States
BRIAN M. BOYNTON Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Division
C. SALVATORE D'ALESSIO, JR. Director Torts Branch, Civil Division
ANDREA W. MCCARTHY Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division
JACOB A. BENNETT Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division Constitutional and Specialized Tort Litigation Attorneys for Defendants the United States
MELANIE A. HILL Nevada Bar No. 8796 Attorneys for Plaintiff Jeremy John Halgat
STIPULATION TO DEFER SUBMISSION OF DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER AND TO STAY DISCOVERY
In light of the requirements imposed by Local Rule 26-1, it is hereby agreed and stipulated by all Parties, through their respective counsel, as follows:
1. This is an action seeking damages from the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”).
2. Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint (FAC) on July 15, 2023. See ECF No. 69.
3. The United States moved to dismiss all claims on July 28, 2023. See ECF No. 71.
4. The United States has argued that it has not waived sovereign immunity for Plaintiff's claims, and therefore that the FAC is subject to dismissal for want of subject matter jurisdiction. See Donovan v. Vance, 70 F.4th 1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 2023) (sovereign immunity “is a threshold jurisdictional issue.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The United States has further argued that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. See ECF No. 71.
5. “Typical situations in which staying discovery pending a ruling on a dispositive motion are appropriate would be where the dispositive motion raises issues of jurisdiction, venue, or immunity.” Bacon v. Reyes, No. 2:12-cv-1222-JCM-VCF, 2013 WL 5522263, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 3, 2013) (citing TradeBay, LLC v. Ebay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011)) (emphasis added).
6. It is the position of the Parties that discovery and related pretrial deadlines should be stayed until disposition by the Court of the pending motion to dismiss, which raises issues of jurisdiction and immunity.
7. Under the Court's Local Rules, Plaintiff's Opposition to the motion was due August 11, 2023. However, the Parties have agreed that Plaintiff may have an additional 30 days to respond to the pending motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 73.
8. The Parties further agree that the submission of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order under Local Rule 26-1 should be deferred and discovery stayed in this civil action until after the Court's disposition of the pending motion to dismiss the FAC. The Parties agree the cost and efficiency of discovery will be better managed if appropriate discovery can be planned and conducted after a decision is made by the Court regarding the legal viability of Plaintiff's claims.
9. The Parties jointly request the Court's approval of their stipulation to defer submission of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order and to stay discovery until after the Court's disposition of the pending motion to dismiss, ECF No. 71.
IT IS SO ORDERED: