Amy Buchanan v. Watkins & Letofsky, LLP

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 16, 2025
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00226
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 AMY BUCHANAN, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:19-cv-00226-GMN-NJK 5 vs. ORDER 6 WATKINS & LETOFSKY, LLP, 7 Defendant. 8 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Memorandum, (ECF No. 78), entered by the United 11 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversing the Court’s Order Granting, in part, and 12 Denying, in part, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 74), and remanding 13 for trial Plaintiff’s discrimination and retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities 14 Act (“ADA”). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered its Mandate on 15 December 12, 2025, hereby transferring jurisdiction back to this Court. 16 Accordingly, 17

18 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall have thirty days from the date of this 19 Order to file a jointly proposed pretrial order (“JPTO”) pursuant to LR 16-3(b) using the form 20 provided in LR 16-4. 21

22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the JPTO the parties must address whether they 23 agree that Plaintiff’s retaliation claim under the ADA should be bifurcated because under 24 Alvarado v. Cajun Operating Co., 588 F.3d 1261, 1270 (9th Cir. 2009) such claims are not for 25 a jury and that pursuant to 42 USC § 200e-5(g)(1) damages for a successful ADA retaliation 1 || claim are limited to reinstatement with or without backpay or other equitable relief, not 2 || compensatory or punitive damages. 3 4 DATED this 16 day of December, 2025.

7 Gloria M. xafaro, District Judge United States District Court 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 2 of 2