Armin Dirk Van Damme v. Tiffany & Bosco, P.A.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 5, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00785
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Armin Dirk Van Damme, 5 Case No. 2:25-cv-00785-RFB-MDC

6 Plaintiff(s), ORDER vs. 7 Tiffany & Bosco, P.A., 8 Defendant(s). 9

10 Pro se plaintiff Armin Dirk Van Damme filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment1 and Compel 11 (“Motion to Compel”)(ECF No. 25) and a Motion for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 30). The Court DENIES 12 the Motion to Compel without prejudice. The Court DENIES the Motion for Judicial Notice. 13 I. MOTION TO COMPEL 14 This is a real estate case. ECF No. 1. Preliminarily, plaintiff is pro se and captioned his Motion to 15 Compel indicating several different forms of relief. The Court’s Local Rule LR IC 2-2(b) require that 16 litigants file separate motions for each different form of relief sought. Id. Substantively, however the 17 plaintiff appears to be attempting to take discovery from the defendant by his Motion to Compel. Thus, 18 the Court construes his Motion to Compel as seeking a singular form of relief to conduct discovery. 19 20 While parties are obligated to diligently move this case along, including diligence in pursuing 21 discovery, the parties have not yet filed a discovery plan and scheduling order in this case, so discovery 22 23

24 1 The Court liberally construes the Motion to Vacate Judgment and to Compel, despite the title, as a discovery motion, as the arguments pertain to discovery. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that in the 25 future he should file separate motions if he seeks different forms of relief. See LR IC 2-2(b)(“For each type of relief requested or purpose of the document, a separate document must be filed and a separate event must be selected for that document.”) is not open. Federal Civil Procedure Rule 26(d)(1) provides that "a party may not seek discovery from 1 any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)...." Id. 2 In addition, Local Rules IA 1-3(f) and LR 26-6, and the Court's Standing Order (ECF No. 19) 3 4 further provide rules and procedures for raising discovery disputes, such as the disputes raised by 5 plaintiff in his Motion to Compel, which the plaintiff failed to do. While the Court understands that 6 plaintiff is proceeding without an attorney (i.e., "pro se"), pro se litigants must comply with the Federal 7 Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the court in which litigation is proceeding. See Carter v. 8 Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986) (pro se litigants expected to abide by 9 the rules of the court in which litigation proceeds); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); 10 see also Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986) ("pro se litigants in the ordinary civil 11 case should not be treated more favorable than parties with attorneys of record"). 12 Defendants are not blameless. The parties are required to hold a Rule 26(f) conference. The 13 parties are reminded of their obligations to cooperate and to meet and confer in good faith to discuss pre- 14 trial disputes. LR IA 1-3(f) provides, in relevant part: "[T] 'meet and confer' means to communicate 15 directly and discuss in good faith the issues required under the particular rule or court order. This 16 17 requirement is reciprocal and applies to all participants." Id. In doing so, the parties must participate in 18 all required conferences, exchange reasonable compromise proposals, and consider them in good faith. 19 That dispositive motions may have been filed is not grounds to refuse discovery or to participate in 20 discovery required conferences. Erwine v. United States, No. 3:24-cv-00045-MMD-CSD, 2024 U.S. 21 Dist. LEXIS 157320, at *2 (D. Nev. Sep. 3, 2024)(there is no automatic stay of discovery just because a 22 potentially dispositive motion is pending.). The defendant has also not moved to stay discovery. Failure 23 to engage in meaningful meet and confer efforts, other court-required conferences, or reasonably and 24 professionally cooperate will result in sanctions. 25 The Court orders the parties to meet and confer regarding discovery and file a Stipulated 1 Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order by December 29, 2025. The Court denies plaintiff’s Motion to 2 Compel without prejudice. If plaintiff wishes to refile his discovery dispute when discovery opens, the 3 4 parties must cooperate pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order. 5 II. MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 6 Plaintiff argues that the Court should, “take judicial notice of the docket in Ninth Circuit Case 7 No. 24-7767, the appeal of the dismissal in Case No. 2:24-cv-01287-JAD-BNW (T&B’s Exhibit C to 8 ECF No. 28), where Defendant Tiffany & Bosco, P.A. (“T&B”) failed to respond to Plaintiff’s opening 9 brief.” ECF No. 30. 10 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a federal court may take judicial notice of 11 adjudicative facts. Fed. R. Evid. 201(a), (d). "The Court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to 12 reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) 13 can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 14 questioned." Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of various documents 15 he asserts are related to other legal proceedings. Plaintiff does not explain how these documents are 16 17 relevant to his claims or what particular facts are the subject of his request for judicial notice — that is, 18 what facts he is arguing are not subject to reasonable dispute. The Court thus denies the Motion for 19 Judicial Notice. 20 IT IS ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff Armin Dirk Van Damme’s Motion to Vacate Judgment and Compel (ECF No. 25) is 22 DENIED. 23 2. The parties shall meet and confer regarding discovery and file a Stipulated Discovery Plan 24 and Scheduling Order in conformity with LR 26-1 by December 29, 2025. 25 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 30) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. “ AF a 4 Dated December 5, 2025 BL a

4 jp fe \___

, NOTICE

Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and

9 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 19 || of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 11 || may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 12 || time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file 13 || objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues \4 | waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the 's District Court. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. ° Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by

counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action.

21 22 23 24 25