Yassin v. Weyker et al

Filing 94

ORDER denying 67 Motion for Issuance of a Pretrial Scheduling Order and Rule 16 Conference. (Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung on 10/22/2019. (JRE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Ifrah Yassin,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-2580 (JNE/TNL)

v.
Heather Weyker, individually and in her
official capacity as a St. Paul Police Officer;
John Does 1-2, individually and in their
official capacities as St. Paul Police
Officers; John Does 3-4, individually and in
their official capacities as supervisory
members of the St. Paul Police Department;
and The City of St. Paul,

ORDER

Defendants,

Joshua A. Newville, Madia Law LLC, 323 Washington Avenue North, Suite 200,
Minneapolis, MN 55401 (for Plaintiff); and
Glenn S. Greene, Brant S. Levine, David G. Cutler, and Paul C. Quast, United States
Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7146, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044
(for Defendant Weyker).
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Pretrial Scheduling Order
and Rule 16 Conference. (ECF No. 67). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will
deny the motion.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Ifrah Yassin filed suit on July 29, 2016. (ECF No. 1). Defendant Heather

Weyker moved to dismiss on December 21, 2016. (ECF No. 22). The District Judge
granted in part and denied in part the motion. (ECF No. 47). Weyker appealed. The Eighth
1

Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss and remanded the
matter for further proceedings. Farah v. Weyker, 926 F.3d 492, 503-04 (8th Cir. 2019).
Following remand, Yassin asked the Court to issue a pretrial scheduling order and
schedule a Rule 16 conference. (ECF No. 67). Weyker filed a memorandum of law in
opposition (ECF No. 70) and a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 74). In response,
Yassin filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) (ECF No. 83), seeking
to defer her response to the summary judgment motion until after she conducted additional
discovery. (ECF No. 85). The District Judge denied that motion on October 18, 2019. (ECF
No. 93). The motion for summary judgment is now scheduled to be heard on December
12, 2019, the same day that dispositive motions will be argued in two related cases. See
Osman v. Weyker, No. 16-cv-908 (ECF No. 120); Farah v. Weyker, No. 16-cv-1289 (ECF
No. 76). 1
II.

ANALYSIS
Yassin asks the Court to issue a pretrial scheduling order and set a conference

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. This Court has “wide authority and
discretion . . . to manage its caseload.” Wisland v. Admiral Beverage Corp., 119 F.3d 733,
737 (8th Cir. 1997); cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(2) (permitting district court to delay issuance
of a pretrial scheduling order when justified by good cause). This includes the authority to
postpone or otherwise delay proceedings pending a decision on a dipositive motion. See
Gerald Chamales Corp. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc., 247 F.R.D. 453, 454 (D.N.J. 2007)

1

See Farah, No. 16-cv-1289 (Ord., pp. 1-2, ECF No. 4) (designating Farah and Osman as related); Yassin, No. 16cv-2580 (Ord., pp. 1-2, ECF No. 4) (designating Yassin and Osman as related).

2

(noting that Magistrate Judges have discretion to decide whether to stay discovery until
decision reached on dispositive motion).
There are dispositive motions pending in this case and two other related cases. The
motions are set be heard on the same day. It will be a more efficient use of the Court and
parties’ time if these matters proceed on similar schedules. Furthermore, the Court will be
able to manage this matter more effectively once it is clear what issues remain to be
litigated following the District Judge’s decision on the dispositive motions. Accordingly,
the Court finds good cause to postpone the Rule 16 conference and issuance of a pretrial
scheduling order until after the summary judgment motion is decided.
III.

CONCLUSION
Therefore, based upon the record, memoranda, and proceedings herein, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Pretrial Scheduling Order and Rule 16 Conference is
DENIED. The parties shall contact the Court within 14 days following the District Judge’s
ruling on Weyker’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 74) to obtain a date for the
pretrial scheduling conference.
2. All prior consistent orders remain in full force and effect.
3. Failure to comply with any provision of this Order or any other prior consistent
order shall subject the non-complying party, non-complying counsel and/or the party such
counsel represents to any and all appropriate remedies, sanctions and the like, including
without limitation: assessment of costs, fines and attorneys’ fees and disbursements; waiver

3

of rights to object; exclusion or limitation of witnesses, testimony, exhibits, and other
evidence; striking of pleadings; complete or partial dismissal with prejudice; entry of whole
or partial default judgment; and/or any other relief that this Court may from time to time
deem appropriate.

Date: October 22, 2019

s/ Tony N. Leung
Tony N. Leung
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Minnesota
Yassin v. Weyker, et al.
Case No. 16-cv-2580 (JNE/TNL)

4