Pierce v. Cnty. of Sierra

Full title: JAMES J. PIERCE, an individual; DAWN M. PIERCE, an individual, Plaintiffs…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 24, 2012

2:11-cv-02280-GEB-EFB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2012)

Opinion

2:11-cv-02280-GEB-EFB

01-24-2012

JAMES J. PIERCE, an individual; DAWN M. PIERCE, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SIERRA, CALIFORNIA, a political subdivision of the State of California; OFFICE OF SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF SIERRA; JACOB ALLEN MURRAY, an individual, Defendants.

GARLAND E. BURRELL

ORDER STAYING ACTION AND SCHEDULING STATUS CONFERENCE

The parties filed a Stipulation Regarding Stay of Action on January 19, 2012, in which they state in relevant part as follows:

WHEREAS, on August 26, 2011, Plaintiffs filed the above referenced action in this court based upon a complete diversity of jurisdiction between all plaintiffs and all defendants;
WHEREAS, Defendant, Jacob Allen Murray ("MURRAY"), is and was a Deputy Sheriff for the County of Sierra, State of California, and it was the understanding of both counsel that MURRAY was a California resident;
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2011, Plaintiffs' counsel, in an attempt to protect the case if a diversity challenge were made, filed an action in the Superior Court of California, County of Sierra, case number 7260 ("STATE ACTION");
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2012, Defendant MURRAY filed an answer in this court;
WHEREAS, counsel for defendants have recently provided counsel for plaintiffs with a "Declaration of Jacob Allen Murray" which states, in relevant part, MURRAY was, at the time of the accident and the filing of this action, a resident of the State of Nevada;
WHEREAS, counsel for plaintiffs would have, in this action, sought an opportunity to conduct discovery regarding MURRAY's domicile in Nevada, including, but not limited to, the reasons for MURRAY's move to and his intent to remain in Nevada; and
WHEREAS, both counsel agree the aforementioned discovery can be conducted in the STATE ACTION are willing, with the court's approval, to avoid the necessity of motion practice over the diversity issue in this court until such time as discovery is conducted.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the parties through their attorneys of record as follows:

1. This matter will be stayed at this time in favor of the STATE ACTION; and,
2. This matter may proceed in the STATE ACTION without prejudice to the parties rights to bring before this court a motion or counter-motion to assert or defeat this court's diversity jurisdiction over this matter should discovery in the STATE ACTION reveal the basis therefor.

(ECF No. 12, 1:21-2:18.)

Since the parties' stipulate that this action be stayed so that the parties could conduct discovery in the STATE ACTION concerning Defendant MURRAY's domicile, this federal lawsuit is stayed until the below ordered joint status report is required to be filed.

A status conference is scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on April 23, 2012; a joint status report shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference, in which the parties shall address this court's subject matter jurisdiction over this action and whether this action should continue pending in light of the pending STATE ACTION.

____________

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge