Van Curen v. Federal Crop Insurance Corporation et al

Filing 29

ORDER re 25 Letter filed by John Van Curen, 26 Letter filed by Risk Management Agency, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, 28 Letter filed by John Van Curen (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOHN VAN CUREN, Plaintiff, v FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION and RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY, Defendants. / No C 09-3509 VRW ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The parties have submitted letters to the court concerning an ongoing dispute whether plaintiff should be able to conduct jurisdictional discovery in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(1). Doc ##25, 26, 28.

Plaintiff seeks to conduct discovery to show that defendants continually failed to act on plaintiff's administrative claims. Doc #25 at 2. Because plaintiff has not shown the discovery sought is necessary to oppose the motion, plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery is DENIED. The court will hear

defendants' motion to dismiss as scheduled on June 10, 2010 at 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

AM.

Plaintiff may, however, file an affidavit, similar in form to

an FRCP 56(f) affidavit, outlining his need for jurisdictional discovery as part of his opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss. See Gualandi v Adams, 385 F3d 236, 244 (2d Cir 2004).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge

2