Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nguyen v. Clark County District Attorney's Office

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 28, 2019

DUKE THOMAS NGUYEN, Plaintiff,
v.
CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants.

          AARON D. FORD Attorney General D. RANDALL GILMER, Bar No. 14001 Chief Deputy Attorney General DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572 Senior Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Governor Brian Sandoval, Adam Paul Laxalt, Barbara K. Cegavske, the State of Nevada, and the State of Nevada Board of Examiners

          AARON D. FORD By: D. Randall Gilmer D. RANDALL GILMER DOUGLAS R. RANDS Senior Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for the State Defendants

          THE GALLIHER LAW FIRM By: Jeffrey L. Galliher (with permission) JEFFREY L. GALLIHER, ESQ. GEORGE J. KUNZ, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING THIS COURT'S DECISION ON THE STATE DEFENDANTS' PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 36)

         It is hereby stipulated between Plaintiff, Duke Thomas Nguyen, by and through counsel, The Galliher Law Firm, Jeffrey L. Galliher, Esq., Keith E. Galliher, Esq. and George J. Kunz, P.C., Esq., Attorneys for the Plaintiff, and Defendants, Brian Sandoval, Adam Paul Laxalt, Barbara K. Cegavske, the State of Nevada and the State of Nevada Board of Examiners (State Defendants), by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, D. Randall Gilmer, Chief Deputy Attorney General, and Douglas R. Rands, Senior Deputy Attorney General (collectively referred to as “the Parties”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29 and Local Rule 26-1, to stay discovery in this matter pending a decision on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

         This Stipulation to stay is being provided to the Court due to this Court's order dated March 11, 2019 which requires Plaintiff to comply with LR 26-1 within 30 days after the first defendant answers or otherwise appears. On March 19, 2019 the State Defendants, in lieu of answering, filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).[1] See ECF No. 36. In addition to various other legal reasons for seeking dismissal, the State Defendants seek dismissal based on Eleventh Amendment immunity as well as under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) “authorizes the court to stay discovery.” Rosenstein v. Clark County School Dist., 2014 WL 2835074 at *2 (D. Nev. June 23, 2014). “Common situations in which a court may determine that staying discovery pending a ruling on a dispositive motion occur when dispositive motions raise issues of jurisdiction, venue, or immunity.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011); see also Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526-27 (1985); Harlow v Fitzgerald, 547 U.S. 800, 819 (1982); Dunn v. Castro, 621 F.3d 1196, (9th Cir. 2010) (noting the importance of deciding immunity issues as soon as possible so that governmental entities and employees may “avoid the burdens of ‘such pretrial matters as discovery'” when possible). Wherefore, given the pending Motion to Dismiss raising issues of immunity, the Parties respectfully state that a stay of discovery pending this Court's decision on the Motion to Dismiss is warranted. Accordingly, based on the mutual agreement of the Parties as reflected in this Stipulation, the Parties respectfully request discovery be stayed pending the Court's decision on the Motion to Dismiss.

         Respectfully agreed and stipulated to by the Parties on March 27, 2019:

         ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO STAY DISCOVERY

         Wherefore, the Parties having stipulated to stay discovery pending this Court's ruling on the State Defendants Motion to Dismiss, it is hereby ordered that the Parties' Stipulation to stay discovery is GRANTED.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have 30 days from decision of the pending motion to dismiss in which to meet and confer and submit a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order in the event any claim survives.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] Defendant PTS has yet to file an answer or otherwise ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.