Halgat v. United States

1 Jacob A. Bennett New York State Bar No. 5753744 Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Constitutional and Specialized Tort Litigation N. St. NE, Rm. 1815 Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 451-7745 Fax: (202) 616-4314 [email protected] Attorney for Defendant the United States 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA JEREMY JOHN HALGAT, ) Case No: 2:22-cv-592-RFB-EJY an individual ) ) 10 Plaintiff ) v. ) STIPULATION TO DEFER 11 ) SUBMISSION OF DISCOVERY PLAN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) AND SCHEDULING ORDER 12 ) AND TO STAY DISCOVERY Defendant. ) 13 ) ) 14 ) ) 15 ) ) 16 ) ) 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.

1 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.

3 Nev. Oct. 3, 2013) (citing TradeBay, LLC v. Ebay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011)) (emphasis added).

5 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.

8 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.

11 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.

17 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.

21 / / / / / / / / / / / / |) Respectfully submitted this 14th day of August, 2023 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 g Torts Branch, Civil Division /s/Jacob A. Bennett || JACOB A. BENNETT Trial Attorney /s/ Melanie A. Hill || Torts Branch, Civil Division MELANIE A. HILL Constitutional and Specialized Tort Nevada Bar No. 8796 Litigation 1925 Village Center Circle, Suite 150 N St. NE, Rm. 1815 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (702) 362-8500 Telephone: (202) 451-7745 Facsimile: (702) 362-8505 || Fax: (202) 616-4314 [email protected] Jacob.A.Bennett@usdo].gov Attorneys for Plaintiff Jeremy John Halgat Attorneys for Defendants the United States 19 IT IS SO ORDERED: 2 United/StatesMagistrate Judge 23 Dated: August 15, 2023