Brown v. Adamson

Opinion

Attorney General 2 LEO T. HENDGES (Bar No. 16034) Senior Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 1 State of Nevada Way Suite 100 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 (702) 486-3795 (phone) 6 (702) 486-3768 (fax) Email: lhendges@ag.nv.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 Dr. Kim Adamson and Dr. Dana Marks 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 JASON BROWN, Case No. 3:21-cv-00500-MMD-CSD 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 14 v. MOTION TO VACATE ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 15 DR. ADAMSON, et al., CONFERENCE (ECF NO. 121) FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 16 Defendants. 17 18 Defendants, Dr. Kim Adamson and Dr. Dana Marks, by and through counsel, 19 Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, and Leo T. Hendges, Senior Deputy Attorney 20 General, of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, hereby move this Court to 21 Vacate the Order setting Settlement Conference (ECF No. 121) based on Defendants’ 22 interlocutory appeal (ECF No. 122) of this Court’s order denying summary judgment in 23 part, because of Defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity (ECF No. 120). 24 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 25 I. BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 26 This Court issued an Order denying in part Defendants’ motion for summary 27 judgment, including a denial of qualified immunity. ECF No. 120 at 6:23-9:18. Defendants 28 have filed an interlocutory appeal of this Order denying qualified immunity. ECF No. 122. 2 2025, based on the filing of that interlocutory appeal follows as the filing of the appeal 3 divested this Court of jurisdiction to hold the conference. 4 II. APPLICABLE LAW 5 The Supreme Court has found “the reasoning that underlies the immediate 6 appealability of an order denying absolute immunity indicates to us that the denial of 7 qualified immunity should be similarly appealable.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 8 526-27 (1985). This is true because, “in each case, the district court’s decision is effectively 9 unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Id. at 527. The Ninth Circuit has adopted 10 the rule that “where, as here, the interlocutory claim is immediately appealable, its filing 11 divests the district court of jurisdiction to proceed to trial.” Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 12 104 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court is automatically divested of jurisdiction unless there 13 is a written certification by the court that the claim of qualified immunity is frivolous. Id. 14 Under Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736, 744 (2023), Griggs v. Provident 15 Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982), Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982), 16 Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308 (1996), and Mitchell, the district court is divested of 17 jurisdiction over all “aspects of the case involved in the appeal” (Griggs, 459 U.S. at 58), 18 and gives Defendants the “right, not merely to avoid standing trial, but also to avoid the 19 burdens of such pretrial matters as discovery” (Behrens, 516 U.S. at 308), and the district 20 court is therefore required to stay its proceedings (Coinbase, 599 U.S. at 744). This 21 expansive rule was recognized by the Ninth Circuit in Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240 (9th 22 Cir. 1996), which held that by “filing the notice of appeal, [a party] divested the district 23 court of its jurisdiction over the matter.” Id. at 1246 (emphasis added; superseded by 24 statute on other grounds). 25 III. ARGUMENT TO VACATE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 26 A. The Appeal Automatically Divests This Court Of Jurisdiction 27 Defendants have filed an interlocutory appeal based on the denial of qualified 28 immunity. ECF No. 122. This appeal automatically divests this Court of jurisdiction 1 || because orders denying qualified immunity are immediately appealable and there has been 2 ||no written certification that the qualified immunity claim is frivolous. Mitchell, 472 U.S. 3 || at 526-27; Chuman, 960 F.2d at 104. 4 B. This Court Must Vacate The Settlement Conference 5 Following the decision on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the only 6 claims remaining for trial are under appeal to the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 120 at 6:23-9:18; 7 || ECF No. 122. As outlined in section II above, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter 8 || based on Defendants’ filing of a notice of appeal. The notice of appeal was filed after this 9 || Court scheduled the settlement conference. Compare ECF Nos. 121, 122. This intervening 10 || change, which occurred after this Court scheduled the settlement conference, requires the 11 || settlement conference be vacated. This Court cannot hold a settlement conference over 12 || claims that it lacks the jurisdiction to resolve. 13 ||IV. CONCLUSION 14 The filing of Defendants’ interlocutory appeal based on qualified immunity has 15 || divested this Court of jurisdiction over the claims which remain in this lawsuit, and the 16 || settlement conference scheduled for March 31, 2025, must be vacated as this Court was 17 || divested of jurisdiction when the appeal was filed. 18 DATED this 3rd day of February, 2025. 19 AARON D. FORD 20 Attorney General By: /s/ Leo T. Hendges 21 LEO T. HENDGES (Bar No. 16034) 99 Senior Deputy Attorney General

93 Attorneys for Defendants 24 25, || IT |S SO ORDERED. 96 || DATED: February 3, 2025. cS By 28 Craig S. Denney United States Magistrate Judge