Hudson v. King County Housing Authority

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 7, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00770
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 MARIA ANN HUDSON, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00770-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS v. 13 KING COUNTY HOUSING 14 AUTHORITY et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This is an action for alleged wrongful conduct against the King County Housing 18 Authority (“KCHA”) and Bellevue Police Department (“BPD”) and employees of those entities. 19 The matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ joint motion for an extension of the deadlines 20 set forth in the Order Regarding Initial Disclosures and Joint Status Report (Dkt. No. 17), which 21 was issued on July 18, 2024. Dkt. No. 28. Plaintiff is appearing pro se (without an attorney). She 22 has a pending motion to amend her complaint, which has a noting date1 of August 12. 23

24 1 The noting date system used in this District indicates the date on which a motion should be fully briefed and ripe for the Court’s consideration. For more information on noting dates, consult the District’s Local Civil Rules and pro 1 Defendants have just filed motions to dismiss, which are noted for September 3 and 4, 2 respectively. Dkt. Nos. 25, 26. 3 Should the Court grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint, Defendants will 4 have an opportunity to file renewed motions to dismiss. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3) (“any required

5 response to an amended pleading must be made within the time remaining to respond to the 6 original pleading or within 14 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever is later”). 7 Defendants are government entities seeking “to avoid incurring the expense of conferring about 8 and preparing a Joint Status Report, making initial disclosures, and conducting discovery while 9 their motions to dismiss await decision by the Court.” Dkt. No. 28 at 2. 10 Courts have inherent power “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and 11 expeditious disposition of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 45 (2016) (internal citations 12 omitted); see also United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008) (“There is a 13 well established principle that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets.” 14 (cleaned up) (internal citation omitted)). For judicial efficiency and to conserve the resources of

15 the Parties, the Court GRANTS the motion for extension. The Court will issue new initial case 16 management deadlines once the pending motions are resolved. 17 Dated this 7th day of August 2024. 18 A 19 Tana Lin United States District Judge 20

21 22 23 se guidance. LCR 7(b), (d); U.S. DIST. CT. W. DIST. WASH., Representing Yourself (“Pro Se”), available at 24 https://perma.cc/5VKZ-J4Q3.