Neylon et al v. County of Inyo et al

Filing 17

ORDER VACATING HEARING AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO CONSIDER RECENT AUTHORITY, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/6/2016. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

MELISSA M. NEYLON and SHAWN P.
NEYLON,
Plaintiffs

8
v.

9
10
11

COUNTY OF INYO, INYO COUNTY
SHERIFF’S OFFICE, BILL LUTZE,
DOUGLAS RICHARDS, and DOES 1 to
50,

12

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00712 AWI JLT
ORDER VACATING HEARING AND
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST
TO CONSIDER RECENT AUTHORITY
(Doc. No. 16)

Defendants

13
14
15

Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Hearing on the

16

motion to dismiss is set for September 12, 2016. The Court has reviewed the papers and has

17

determined that this matter is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Local Rule 230(g).

18

Additionally, on August 29, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an opposition, and on September 2, 2016,

19

Defendants filed a reply. On September 6, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a request to consider recent

20

authority. See Doc. No. 16. The recent authority is an order on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion from the

21

Central District of California. See id. The order involves similar issues to those raised in this case

22

and was issued on August 30, 2016. See id. The Court will consider the recent decision from the

23

Central District, and will give Defendants the opportunity to respond.1 If Defendants respond to

24

the recent authority, and if the Court determines that a hearing would be beneficial, then the Court

25

will set a new hearing date at that time. Otherwise, there will be no hearing on Defendants’

26

motion to dismiss.

27
28

1

By granting Plaintiffs’ request, the Court is expressing no opinion as to the merits of Defendants’ motion or to the
persuasive value, if any, of the Central District’s order.

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The September 12, 2016 hearing date on Defendants’ motion to dismiss is VACATED;

3

2.

Plaintiff’s request to consider recent authority is GRANTED; and

4

3.

If Defendants desire to respond to the recent authority identified by Plaintiffs, then

5

Defendants may file a response on or by 4:00 p.m. on September 9, 2016.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 6, 2016
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2