Palomino v. Morris

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedNovember 4, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-01818
StatusUnknown

This text of Palomino v. Morris (Palomino v. Morris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Palomino v. Morris, (D. Nev. 2020).

Opinion

1 NUInCitHedO SLtaAteSs AA.t TtoRrnUeTy A NICH 2 District of Nevada Nevada Bar No. 13644 3 PATRICK A. ROSE 4 Assistant United States Attorney Nevada Bar No. 5109 5 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 6 (702)388-6336 Patrick Rose@usdoj.gov 7 Attorneys for 8 United States Department of Agriculture 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 12 Amanda Ruth Palomino, an individual, Case No. 2:20-cv-01818-GMN-EJY 13 Plaintiff, Stipulation and Order 14 v. 15 Donald Ray Morris, an individual; United States Department of Agriculture; Does I 16 through XV; and Roe Corporations I through X, inclusive, 17 Defendant. 18 19 Having recently reached a resolution in this matter, Plaintiff Amanda Ruth 20 Palomino and Defendant United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) stipulate to, 21 and request that the Court issue, an order staying discovery, including compliance with 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and LR 26-1, and otherwise approving the terms herein.1 23 “Every court has the inherent power to stay causes on its docket with a view to 24 avoiding duplicative litigation, inconsistent results, and waste of time and effort by itself, 25 1 Defendant Donald Ray Morris (“Morris”), a former employee of the USDA, has not entered 26 an appearance in this action. See Joint Status Report, ECF No. 10 (noting that while Plaintiff 27 served the state court complaint and a state court summons on Morris on August 3, 2020, Plaintiff has not thus far served copies of such process, particularly a summons directed to 28 Morris, on the United States, see Nev. R. Civ. P. 4.3(a)(5); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1), (2), (3); 1 || the litigants and counsel.” Stern v. United States, 563 F. Supp. 484, 489 (D. Nev. 1983) 2 || (citations omitted). 3 Under the circumstances, and with an estimate that that it may take approximately 4 ||45 days to implement the terms of the parties’ resolution, now therefore: 5 1. Discovery, including compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and LR 26-1, is 6 stayed pending further order of this Court; 7 2. Within 60 days of entry of an order approving this stipulation, the parties shall 8 file either (i) a stipulation to dismiss this action with prejudice, each party to bear 9 its own attorneys’ fees and costs, or, (ii) if such a stipulation cannot be filed, a 10 joint status report concerning the matter; and 11 3. The USDA’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5, is withdrawn without prejudice, 12 and the Court need not take action on such motion, as had been noted in the 13 parties’ earlier Joint Status Report, ECF No. 10. 14 Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of November 2020. 15 || GINA CORENA & ASSOCIATES NICHOLAS A. TRUTANICH 16 United States Attorney /s/ Betsy C. Jefferis /s/ Patrick A. Rose 17 || BETSY C. JEFFERIS, Esq. PATRICK A. ROSE Nevada Bar No. 12980 Assistant United States Attorney 18 || 300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 250 Attorneys for the United States Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 19 || Attorn eys for Plaintiff 20 21 ITIS SO ORDERED: 22 23 UNITED i Loree JUDGE 24 25 DATED: November 4, 2020 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stern v. United States
563 F. Supp. 484 (D. Nevada, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Palomino v. Morris, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palomino-v-morris-nvd-2020.