Gumataotao v. Highsmith

• Court: District Court, D. Guam
• Decided: October 27, 2021
• Docket: 1:21-cv-00019
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM 7 GARY WAYNE FRANCIS CIVIL CASE NO. 21-00019 GUMATAOTAO, 8 Plaintiff, 9 vs. ORDER 10 Granting Motion to Suspend Rule 16 DAVID JEFFREY HIGHSMITH; DOES I Scheduling Order Timelines and 11 and II INSURANCE COMPANIES; and Stay Discovery (ECF No. 17) GOVERNMENT OF GUAM 12 Defendants. 13 14 Pending before the court is a Motion to Suspend Rule 16 Scheduling Order Timelines and 15 Stay Discovery (the “Motion to Stay Discovery”), filed by Defendant Government of Guam. See 16 ECF No. 17. Defendant Highsmith does not oppose the motion. Id. at 2. Plaintiff filed an 17 Opposition to the motion, and the Government of Guam subsequently filed a Reply to the 18 Opposition. See ECF nos. 19 and 20. No party has requested that the motion be set for hearing, and 19 the court does not believe oral argument on the matter is necessary. Accordingly, having reviewed 20 the pertinent filings and relevant case law, the court issues this Order granting the Motion to Stay 21 Discovery. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On July 22, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Verified Complaint1 in the Superior Court of Guam 24 against the Defendants, and on August 9, 2021, the Defendants removed the action to this court. See 25 1 Hereinafter, the “Complaint.” A copy of the Complaint is attached to the Notice of 26 Removal, beginning on page 7. . The Complaint alleges that Defendant Highsmith, who was then 27 employed as an Assistant Attorney General for the Government of Guam, pushed the Plaintiff in the atrium of the Superior Court of Guam following a court hearing and caused Plaintiff to suffer 28 1 Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. Count I of the Complaint asserts various torts against Defendant 2 Highsmith and unnamed insurance companies.2 Count II of the Complaint seeks compensatory 3 damages from Defendant Government of Guam.3 Count III of the Complaint asserts a Section 1983 4 claim against Defendants Highsmith and the Government of Guam for violating the Plaintiff’s civil 5 rights and seeks compensatory as well as punitive damages against said Defendants.4 6 On August 17, 2021, the Government of Guam of Guam filed a Motion to Dismiss, seeking 7 a dismissal of all claims against it because of the government’s sovereign immunity, statutory 8 immunity or the Plaintiff’s failure to state plausibly cognizable claims against it. See Gov’t of Guam 9 Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 2. 10 On August 23, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand. See Mot. Remand, ECF No. 3. 11 Said motion asserts that the court should remand the entire case back to the Superior Court of Guam 12 or, in the alternative, to sever the claims and remand Counts I and II back to the Superior Court. Id. 13 at 8. 14 On August 24, 2021, Defendant Highsmith filed a Motion to Dismiss seeking a dismissal, 15 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), of some claims in Count I and Count III in its entirety. See Highsmith 16 Mot. Dismiss at 2, ECF No. 4. 17 The above motions have been fully briefed and are pending before the Chief Judge. 18 DISCUSSION 19 The Government of Guam asks the court to stay discovery pending the court’s rulings on the 20 Defendants’ motions to dismiss. The Government of Guam seeks dismissal on various grounds 21 which includes sovereign immunity, and because the issue of sovereign immunity is jurisdictional, 22 23 2 The claims as listed in Count I are Assault, Battery, Infliction of Emotional Distress, Invasion of Privacy, Loss of Reputation, Oppressive Conduct and Punitive Damages. See Compl. 24 at ¶¶27-52, ECF No. 1. 25 3 Count II includes claims arising under the Government Claims Act (5 GUAM CODE ANN. 26 § 6101 et seq.),“federal and local Whistleblower laws and regulations and the Organic Act of Guam” and “the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Organic Act of Guam” and the 27 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. See Compl. at ¶¶53-97, ECF No. 1. 28 1 it argues that said issue should be resolved before the Government of Guam expends further 2 resources in the discovery process. 3 A district court has wide discretion to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 4 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Although a pending motion to dismiss ordinarily would not warrant a stay 5 of discovery, a stay may be justified when issues of jurisdiction or immunity are raised in the 6 dispositive motion. Id. (finding no abuse of discretion where the district court stayed discovery 7 pending the resolution of an immunity issue). Consistent with the other district court’s in this circuit, 8 the court will employ a two-part test to determine whether to exercise its discretion and stay 9 discovery pending resolution of the motions to dismiss and the motion seeking remand. First, “a 10 pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least dispositive on the issue 11 at which discovery is directed.” In re Nexus 6p Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 17-CV-02185-BLF, 2017 12 WL 3581188, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017). Second, “the court must determine whether the 13 pending motion can be decided absent discovery.” Id. 14 Here, Defendants’ motions to dismiss are potentially dispositive. A dismissal of the federal 15 claims would result in a remand of this action because this court would lack subject matter 16 jurisdiction over the remaining local law claims. Additionally, the Government of Guam seeks 17 dismissal based on sovereign immunity, which involves a question of law and not fact, see City of 18 San Juan Capistrano v. California Pub. Utilities Comm’n, 937 F.3d 1278, 1280 (9th Cir. 2019), that 19 issue can be decided without the need for discovery. See Hachette Distribution v. Hudson Cty. News 20 Co., 136 F.R.D. 356, 358 (E.D.N.Y. 1991 (“Discovery should be stayed . . . only when there are no 21 factual issues in need of further immediate exploration, and the issues before the [c]ourt are purely 22 questions of law that are potentially dispositive.”). 23 Furthermore, the motions to dismiss seek dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) because of 24 Plaintiff’s alleged failure to state plausibly cognizable claims against the Defendants. “The purpose 25 of [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 12(b)(6) is to enable defendants to challenge the legal sufficiency of complaints 26 without subjecting themselves to discovery.” Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 27 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987). The Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Stay Discovery does not assert 28 that discovery is required to oppose the motions to dismiss. The Plaintiff has already filed his Gary Wayne Francis Gumataotao v. David Jeffrey Highsmith, Government of Guam, et al., Civil Case No. 21-00019 Order Granting Motion to Stay Discovery page 4 of 4 1 || opposition to the dispositive motions. See ECF Nos. 10-11. Rather, the Plaintiff argues that 2 || discovery should commence “to resolve the case.” Opp’n at 5, ECF No. 19. Discovery is an 3 || expensive process, and the court is mindful of Rule 1’s instruction that the federal rules “should be 4 || construed, administered and employed. . . to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination 5 || of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (emphasis added). Having reviewed the moving 6 || and responsive papers and taken a “preliminary peek” at the parties’ briefs on the motions to dismiss, 7 || the court finds that goals of Rule 1 would be best served by staying discovery in this action pending 8 || the Chief Judge’s ruling on the dispositive motions. 9 CONCLUSION 10 Based on the above discussion and finding that discovery is unnecessary to the resolution of 11 || the dispositive motions, the court grants the Government of Guam’s Motion to Stay Discovery and 12 || orders that all discovery in this action be stayed until the Chief Judge rules on the pending motions. 13 || The court also orders that the scheduling conference set for November 9, 2021, be vacated. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED.

NEG) eter i 4 Dated: Oct 27, 2021 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28