Moss v. Perry

Attorney General Sabrena K. Clinton (Bar No. 6499) Senior Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 1 State of Nevada Way, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89119 (702) 486-3420 (phone) (702) 486-3773 (fax) [email protected] Attorneys for The Honorable Mary Perry, in Her Personal and Elected Capacity, and The Eighth Judicial District Court, County of Clark 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA JOSEPH MOSS, Case No. 2:25-cv-00163-APG-EJY 12 Plaintiff, vs. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY THE HONORABLE MARY PERRY, In Her Personal and Elected Capacity; THE [FIRST REQUEST] EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF CLARK; and DOES and ROES I-X, 17 Defendant(s).

18 Plaintiff Joseph Moss, through counsel Timothy R. Treffinger, Esq. and Defendants Honorable Judge Mary Perry and the Eighth Judicial District Court (collectively “State Defendants”), through counsel Sabrena K. Clinton, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, submit this proposed joint stipulation and order to stay discovery for the following reasons.

23 1. On January 27, 2025, Plaintiff Joseph Moss (“Moss”) filed a complaint (ECF No. 1) alleging constitutional violations stemming from the adjudication of a child custody dispute before Judge Mary Perry, Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division. He alleged the following six claims: 27 • First Claim for Relief—deprivation of the right to due process under the Fourteenth 28 Amendment in violation of 42 USC 1983; 2 Fourteenth Amendments; 3 • Third Claim for Relief—denial of due process and equal protection rights in 4 violation of the Nevada Constitution; 5 • Fourth Claim for Relief—conspiracy to deny civil rights; 6 • Fifth Claim for Relief—conspiracy to deprive a person of rights or privileges under 7 42 USC 1983(3); and 8 • Sixth Claim for Relief—civil conspiracy under NRS section 876.

9 2. On February 21, 2025, State Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) for failure to effectuate proper service (NRCP 12(b)(5)), and failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted (NRCP 12(b)(6)) based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, judicial immunity, Younger abstention, and other grounds.

13 3. Moss opposed the motion (ECF No. 7) and on March 14, 2025, Stated Defendants filed their reply in support of the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8).

15 4. A decision on State Defendants’ motion to dismiss is currently pending before the Court which may be dispositive of the case.

17 5. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Parties submit that good cause exists to stipulate to stay discovery pending a decision on State Defendants’ motion to dismiss which may be dispositive of the entire case and can be decided without discovery.

20 6. The Parties agree that it is in their best interests to obtain a ruling on State Defendants’ motion to dismiss prior to setting discovery deadlines and incurring the time and expense of written discovery and depositions 7. [A] district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). When deciding whether to stay discovery, a court is guided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, which ensures a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Schrader v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 2021 WL 4810324, *3 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021) (quoting FRCP 1); See also Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 28 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). And Rule 12(b)(6) “is designed ‘to enable defendants to challenge which can be ‘prohibitive.’” City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 969 F.3d 895, 910 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987)).

4 8. The Parties agree that discovery is not required for the Court to decide State Defendants’ motion to dismiss. As the Court’s ruling could be dispositive of the entire case, it would be an inefficient use of resources to engage in discovery prior to that time. See Sibley v. U.S. Sup. Ct., 786 F. Supp. 2d 338, 346 (D.D.C. 2011) (“[I]t is well settled that discovery is generally considered inappropriate while a motion that would be thoroughly dispositive of the claims in the Complaint is pending.”). As such, it is within the Court’s power to grant a stay of discovery at this time.

11 9. The Parties, after consultation with one another, have determined it would be in the best interest of all Parties to request that the Court grant a stay of discovery until the Court renders a decision on State Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss.

14 10. Further, the Parties believe that a stay of discovery puts them in the best position to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of time and money. See FRCP 1 and LR 1-1. The interests of litigation efficiency and judicial economy are also promoted by a stay of discovery in this case.

18 11. Should the Court deny State Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Parties will file a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order within thirty (30) days after the entry of the Court’s order.

21 WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request that the Court enter an order staying discovery until the aforementioned motion is decided.

24 / / / / / / / / / a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order will be due thirty (30) days from the date of entry of the Court’s order.

5 IT IS SO STIPULATED.

7 Dated this 7th day of April, 2025. Dated this 7th day of April, 2025.

8 AMERICAN FREDOM GROUP AARON D. FORD By: /s/ Timothy R. Treffinger By: /s/ Sabrena K. Clinton Timothy R. Treffinger (Bar No. 12877) Sabrena K. Clinton (Bar No. 6499) 10 800 North Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 208 Senior Deputy Attorney General Las Vegas, NV 89107 State of Nevada 11 Office of the Attorney General Attorney for Plaintiff 1 State of Nevada Way, Suite 100 12 Las Vegas, NV 89119 13 Attorneys for The Honorable Mary Perry, in Her Personal and Elected 14 Capacity, and the Eighth Judicial District Court, County of Clark 16 ORDER 17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated this 7th day of April, 2025.

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE