Brown v. Adamson

Opinion

Attorney General LEO T. HENDGES (Bar No. 16034) Senior Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 1 State of Nevada Way Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 (702) 486-3795 (phone) (702) 486-3768 (fax) Email: lhendges@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Defendants Dr. Kim Adamson and Dr. Dana Marks JASON BROWN, Case No. 3:21-cv-00500-MMD-CSD Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING v. MOTION TO VACATE ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT DR. ADAMSON, et al., CONFERENCE (ECF NO. 121) FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Defendants. Defendants, Dr. Kim Adamson and Dr. Dana Marks, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, and Leo T. Hendges, Senior Deputy Attorney General, of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, hereby move this Court to Vacate the Order setting Settlement Conference (ECF No. 121) based on Defendants’ interlocutory appeal (ECF No. 122) of this Court’s order denying summary judgment in part, because of Defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity (ECF No. 120). This Court issued an Order denying in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, including a denial of qualified immunity. ECF No. 120 at 6:23-9:18. Defendants have filed an interlocutory appeal of this Order denying qualified immunity. ECF No. 122. 2025, based on the filing of that interlocutory appeal follows as the filing of the appeal divested this Court of jurisdiction to hold the conference. The Supreme Court has found “the reasoning that underlies the immediate appealability of an order denying absolute immunity indicates to us that the denial of qualified immunity should be similarly appealable.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526-27 (1985). This is true because, “in each case, the district court’s decision is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Id. at 527. The Ninth Circuit has adopted the rule that “where, as here, the interlocutory claim is immediately appealable, its filing divests the district court of jurisdiction to proceed to trial.” Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court is automatically divested of jurisdiction unless there is a written certification by the court that the claim of qualified immunity is frivolous. Id. Under Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736, 744 (2023), Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982), Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982), Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308 (1996), and Mitchell, the district court is divested of jurisdiction over all “aspects of the case involved in the appeal” (Griggs, 459 U.S. at 58), and gives Defendants the “right, not merely to avoid standing trial, but also to avoid the burdens of such pretrial matters as discovery” (Behrens, 516 U.S. at 308), and the district court is therefore required to stay its proceedings (Coinbase, 599 U.S. at 744). This expansive rule was recognized by the Ninth Circuit in Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1996), which held that by “filing the notice of appeal, [a party] divested the district court of its jurisdiction over the matter.” Id. at 1246 (emphasis added; superseded by statute on other grounds). A. The Appeal Automatically Divests This Court Of Jurisdiction Defendants have filed an interlocutory appeal based on the denial of qualified immunity. ECF No. 122. This appeal automatically divests this Court of jurisdiction because orders denying qualified immunity are immediately appealable and there has been no written certification that the qualified immunity claim is frivolous. Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526-27; Chuman, 960 F.2d at 104. B. This Court Must Vacate The Settlement Conference Following the decision on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the only claims remaining for trial are under appeal to the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 120 at 6:23-9:18; ECF No. 122. As outlined in section II above, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter based on Defendants’ filing of a notice of appeal. The notice of appeal was filed after this Court scheduled the settlement conference. Compare ECF Nos. 121, 122. This intervening change, which occurred after this Court scheduled the settlement conference, requires the settlement conference be vacated. This Court cannot hold a settlement conference over claims that it lacks the jurisdiction to resolve. IV. CONCLUSION The filing of Defendants’ interlocutory appeal based on qualified immunity has divested this Court of jurisdiction over the claims which remain in this lawsuit, and the settlement conference scheduled for March 31, 2025, must be vacated as this Court was divested of jurisdiction when the appeal was filed. DATED this 3rd day of February, 2025. Attorney General By: /s/ Leo T. Hendges LEO T. HENDGES (Bar No. 16034) 99 Senior Deputy Attorney General

93 Attorneys for Defendants 25, || IT |S SO ORDERED. 96 DATED: February 3, 2025. cS By Craig S. Denney United States Magistrate Judge