Boykin v. United States

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 1, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00717
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JUAnSitOedN S Mtat.e Fs RAItEtoRrnSeOyN 2 District of Nevada Nevada Bar No. 7709 3 PATRICK A. ROSE Assistant United States Attorney 4 Nevada Bar No. 5109 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 388-6336 6 Patrick.Rose@usdoj.gov

7 Attorneys for the United States

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9

10 ALYSE BOYKIN, Case No. 2:22-cv-00717-MMD-DJA 11 Plaintiff, Stipulation and Order to Schedule v. 12 Settlement Conference and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Stay Remaining Deadlines 13 DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Pursuant to LR 26-3 and the Court’s inherent power, the parties respectfully request 17 that the Court set this matter for a settlement conference and stay the deadline of July 9, 2023, 18 for the proposed joint pretrial order. 19 This action arises under the Federal Tort Claim Act (“FTCA”)1 for alleged injuries to 20 Plaintiff arising from an October 22, 2018, car accident. The parties have completed 21 discovery. The only remaining deadlines are those of June 8, 2023, for dispositive motions 22 and July 9, 2023, for the proposed joint pretrial order. 23 Often in this district, civil cases are referred for a settlement conference after a ruling 24 on dispositive motions, if any, and after the filing of the proposed joint pretrial order The 25 parties submit that it would conserve their resources, as well as those of the Court, if the 26 settlement conference for this matter were held before the filings and adjudications, as 27

28 1 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 1402(b), 2401(b), 2402, 2671-2680. 1 applicable, of dispositive motions and the proposed joint pretrial order. Additionally, defense 2 counsel has scheduled leave and travel during the time that the proposed joint pretrial order 3 would be due. A district court has wide latitude in controlling discovery, Volk v. D.A. Davidson 4 & Co., 816 F.2d 1406, 1416–17 (9th Cir. 1987), as well as the inherent power to stay causes on 5 its docket to avoid duplicative litigation, inconsistent results, and waste of time and effort, 6 Stern v. United States, 563 F. Supp. 484, 489 (D. Nev. 1983) (Supreme Court citations omitted). 7 If this case were not resolved at the settlement conference, the parties agree to submit 8 within 14 days thereafter a new, proposed schedule for dispositive motions and the proposed 9 joint pretrial order. 10 Taking into accounts their schedules and obligations in other cases, the parties propose 11 the following dates for a settlement conference: 12 August 16–18, 2023; 13 the week of August 21, 2023; and 14 the week of August 28, 2023; 15 the week of September 11, 2023; 16 the week of September 18, 2023; and 17 the week of September 25, 2023. 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant this stipulation and 2 || thereafter issue a separate order setting the date, details, and requirements for the settlement 3 || conference. 4 Respectfully submitted this 30th day of May 2023. 5 || MOSS BERG INJURY LAWYERS JASON M. FRIERSON 6 United States Attorney /s/ Marcus A. Berg /s/ Patrick A. Rose 7 || MARCUS A. BERG, Esq. PATRICK A. ROSE Nevada Bar No. 9760 Assistant United States Attorney 8 || 4101 Meadows Lane, Suite 110 Attorneys for the United States Las Vegas, Nevada 89107 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court will enter a separate order setting the D settlement conference. ) □ 13 UNITED STATES|MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 DATED: June 1, 2023 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28