Boykin v. United States

Opinion

JUAnSitOedN S Mtat.e Fs RAItEtoRrnSeOyN District of Nevada Nevada Bar No. 7709 Assistant United States Attorney Nevada Bar No. 5109 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 388-6336 Patrick.Rose@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the United States

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

ALYSE BOYKIN, Case No. 2:22-cv-00717-MMD-DJA Plaintiff, Stipulation and Order to Schedule v. Settlement Conference and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Stay Remaining Deadlines DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, Defendant. Pursuant to LR 26-3 and the Court’s inherent power, the parties respectfully request that the Court set this matter for a settlement conference and stay the deadline of July 9, 2023, for the proposed joint pretrial order. This action arises under the Federal Tort Claim Act (“FTCA”)1 for alleged injuries to Plaintiff arising from an October 22, 2018, car accident. The parties have completed discovery. The only remaining deadlines are those of June 8, 2023, for dispositive motions and July 9, 2023, for the proposed joint pretrial order. Often in this district, civil cases are referred for a settlement conference after a ruling on dispositive motions, if any, and after the filing of the proposed joint pretrial order The parties submit that it would conserve their resources, as well as those of the Court, if the settlement conference for this matter were held before the filings and adjudications, as

1 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 1402(b), 2401(b), 2402, 2671-2680. applicable, of dispositive motions and the proposed joint pretrial order. Additionally, defense counsel has scheduled leave and travel during the time that the proposed joint pretrial order would be due. A district court has wide latitude in controlling discovery, Volk v. D.A. Davidson & Co., 816 F.2d 1406, 1416–17 (9th Cir. 1987), as well as the inherent power to stay causes on its docket to avoid duplicative litigation, inconsistent results, and waste of time and effort, Stern v. United States, 563 F. Supp. 484, 489 (D. Nev. 1983) (Supreme Court citations omitted). If this case were not resolved at the settlement conference, the parties agree to submit within 14 days thereafter a new, proposed schedule for dispositive motions and the proposed joint pretrial order. Taking into accounts their schedules and obligations in other cases, the parties propose the following dates for a settlement conference: August 16–18, 2023; the week of August 21, 2023; and the week of August 28, 2023; the week of September 11, 2023; the week of September 18, 2023; and the week of September 25, 2023. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant this stipulation and thereafter issue a separate order setting the date, details, and requirements for the settlement conference. Respectfully submitted this 30th day of May 2023. MOSS BERG INJURY LAWYERS JASON M. FRIERSON United States Attorney /s/ Marcus A. Berg /s/ Patrick A. Rose MARCUS A. BERG, Esq. PATRICK A. ROSE Nevada Bar No. 9760 Assistant United States Attorney 4101 Meadows Lane, Suite 110 Attorneys for the United States Las Vegas, Nevada 89107 Attorneys for Plaintiff IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court will enter a separate order setting the D settlement conference. ) □ UNITED STATES|MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED: June 1, 2023