Walton v. City of Tunica, Mississippi

N.D. Mississippi

Walton v. City of Tunica, Mississippi

DecidedDecember 22, 2020

Docket3:20-cv-00211

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Walton v. City of Tunica, Mississippi, (N.D. Miss. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION MALAYSIA WALTON PLAINTIFF VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:20CV211-MPM-JIMV CITY OF TUNICA, MISSISSIPPI, TUNICA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, & JOHN DOE DEFENDANT OFFICERS 1-10 in their individual and official capacities DEFENDANTS

ORDER STAYING CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS This matter is before the court, sua sponte, for a stay of discovery due to defendant, Tunica County, Mississippi’s, motion to dismiss [11] for insufficiency of service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). Local Uniform Civil Rule 16(b)(3)(B) provides that “[f]iling a motion asserting... a jurisdictional defense... stays the attorney conference and disclosure requirements and all discovery, pending the court’s ruling on the motion, including any appeal. Whether to permit discovery on issues related to the motion... [is a decision] committed to the discretion of the court.” Civ. R. 16(b)(3)(B). A claim of insufficient service of process is a jurisdictional defense. See Flory y. U.S., 79 F.3d 24, 25-26 (5" Cir. 1996). Accordingly, a stay of certain proceedings is appropriate. Should the parties desire to undertake jurisdictional discovery they should first contact the court for scheduling of same within seven (7) days hereof, setting forth the type and scope of such discovery and an estimated time frame for constructing it. If any party objects to the motion for discovery, it shall file its objection within four (4) days following service of the motion for jurisdictional discovery.

IT IS, THERFORE, ORDERED that aforementioned proceedings are hereby STAYED and Defendant shall notify the undersigned magistrate judge within seven (7) days of a decision on the motion to dismiss and shall submit a proposed order lifting the stay. SO ORDERED this, December 22, 2020. /s/ Jane M. Virden UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION MALAYSIA WALTON PLAINTIFF VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:20CV211-MPM-JIMV CITY OF TUNICA, MISSISSIPPI, TUNICA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, & JOHN DOE DEFENDANT OFFICERS 1-10 in their individual and official capacities DEFENDANTS

ORDER STAYING CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS This matter is before the court, sua sponte, for a stay of discovery due to defendant, Tunica County, Mississippi’s, motion to dismiss [11] for insufficiency of service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). Local Uniform Civil Rule 16(b)(3)(B) provides that “[f]iling a motion asserting... a jurisdictional defense... stays the attorney conference and disclosure requirements and all discovery, pending the court’s ruling on the motion, including any appeal. Whether to permit discovery on issues related to the motion... [is a decision] committed to the discretion of the court.” Civ. R. 16(b)(3)(B). A claim of insufficient service of process is a jurisdictional defense. See Flory y. U.S., 79 F.3d 24, 25-26 (5" Cir. 1996). Accordingly, a stay of certain proceedings is appropriate. Should the parties desire to undertake jurisdictional discovery they should first contact the court for scheduling of same within seven (7) days hereof, setting forth the type and scope of such discovery and an estimated time frame for constructing it. If any party objects to the motion for discovery, it shall file its objection within four (4) days following service of the motion for jurisdictional discovery.

IT IS, THERFORE, ORDERED that aforementioned proceedings are hereby STAYED and Defendant shall notify the undersigned magistrate judge within seven (7) days of a decision on the motion to dismiss and shall submit a proposed order lifting the stay. SO ORDERED this, December 22, 2020. /s/ Jane M. Virden UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Walton v. City of Tunica, Mississippi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walton-v-city-of-tunica-mississippi-msnd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack