Dina Titus v. David Havlicek

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01916
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 Matthew B. Berry, VA Bar No. 42600 General Counsel 2 Todd B. Tatelman, VA Bar No. 66008 Deputy General Counsel 3 Kenneth C. Daines, DC Bar No. 1600753 Assistant General Counsel 4 OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 5 5140 O’Neill House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 6 (202) 225-9700 Matthew.Berry@mail.house.gov 7 Counsel for the Honorable Dina Titus, Defendant 8 David Havlicek 9 270 E. Flamingo Rd., Unit 202 Las Vegas, NV 89169 10 (312) 893-7507 snex@xens.org 11 Pro se Plaintiff 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 15 DAVID HAVLICEK, Case No. 2:24-cv-001916-APG-EJY 16 Plaintiff, 17 v. STIPULATION TO STAY DISCOVERY 18 DINA TITUS, 19 Defendant. 20 21 Pursuant to this Court’s October 7, 2025 Order, ECF 25, Congresswoman Dina Titus and 22 Plaintiff David Havlicek hereby stipulate to a stay of all discovery proceedings pending resolution of 23 Congresswoman Titus’s motion to dismiss. ECF 19. The bases for the stipulation are as follows: 24 1. Mr. Havlicek filed his complaint in this action on October 15, 2024, seeking to 25 enjoin Congresswoman Titus from allegedly prohibiting his access to the Congresswoman’s social 26 media accounts on X. ECF 1. 27 1 2. On November 12, 2024, Mr. Havlicek filed a proof of service, ECF 9, and 2 afterwards moved for entry of default against Congresswoman Titus, ECF 13. On April 7, 2025, 3 this Court denied those motions because Mr. Havlicek had not demonstrated proper service on 4 Congresswoman Titus. ECF 14. 5 3. On June 25, 2025, Mr. Havlicek filed another proof of service, alleging service on 6 Congresswoman Titus by process server on June 16, 2025. ECF 15. 7 4. On August 22, 2025, Congresswoman Titus filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), arguing that Mr. Havlicek failed to effectuate service on 9 Congresswoman Titus pursuant to the applicable rules, and that Plaintiff’s claims have been 10 rendered moot since the complaint was filed. ECF 19. Mr. Havlicek filed his opposition to the 11 motion on August 27, ECF 21, and Congresswoman Titus filed a reply in support of the motion on 12 September 3, ECF 22. 13 5. On October 7, 2025, the Court ordered the parties to either file a joint proposed 14 discovery plan and scheduling order or a stipulation to stay discovery within 14 days of the date of 15 the Order. 16 6. “Common situations in which a court may determine that staying discovery pending 17 a ruling on a dispositive motion occur when dispositive motions raise issues of jurisdiction, venue, 18 or immunity.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Because 19 Congresswoman Titus’s motion to dismiss alleges that she has not been properly served, her 20 position is that the Court lacks jurisdiction over her in the instant action. See, e.g., Direct Mail 21 Specialists v. Eclat Computerized Techs., Inc., 840 F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A federal court does not 22 have jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served properly under [Rule] 4.”); 23 see also Hardy v. Glob. Options Servs., Inc., No. 13-CV-00514, 2013 WL 6059154, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 24 14, 2013) (If a defendant is not “properly served,” “no discovery [can] be had against [the] 25 [d]efendant.”). Mr. Havlicek disagrees with Congresswoman Titus’s position and contends that she 26 has been properly served. But since the Court has not yet ruled on the jurisdictional issues raised in 27 Congresswoman Titus’s motion to dismiss, a stay of discovery pending resolution of that motion is 1 appropriate. 2 7. Based on the foregoing, and to preserve the parties’ resources and promote judicial 3 economy, the parties have agreed, subject to the Court’s approval, to stay all discovery proceedings 4 pending resolution of Congresswoman Titus’s motion to dismiss. 5 8. The parties submit this stipulation in good faith and not for the purpose of delay or 6 prejudice to any party. 7 Respectfully submitted, 8 /s/ Matthew Berry /s/ David Havlicek 9 Matthew B. Berry, VA Bar No. 42600 David Havlicek General Counsel 270 E. Flamingo Rd., Unit 202 10 Todd B. Tatelman, VA Bar No. 66008 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Deputy General Counsel (312) 893-7507 11 Kenneth C. Daines, DC Bar No. 1600753 snex@xens.org Assistant General Counsel Pro se Plaintiff 12 OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 13 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 5140 O’Neill House Office Building 14 Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-9700 15 Matthew.Berry@mail.house.gov 16 Counsel for the Honorable Dina Titus, Defendant 17 October 14, 2025 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 ________________________________________ 22 U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 Dated: __O__ct_o_b_e_r_ 1_4_, _2_0_2_5_. ________ 25 26 27