Khiger v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 56

ORDER Vacating 53 Scheduling Order. A stay of discovery is entered until decision of all dispositive motions. The Defendants who have not yet made an appearance, but who have been served shall have until August 1, 2014, in which to respond to the amended complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 7/2/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

DR. ALAN KHIGER,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:14-cv-00512-LDG-PAL
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
Defendants.

12

Before the court is Defendants Bank of America, Dr. Zev Langstein and Dex Media

13

Inc.’s Joint Status Report (Dkt. #34) filed May 2, 2014. In the status report, Defendants Bank of

14

America, Dr. Zev Langstein, and Dex Media, Inc. (“Defendants”) request that the court issue a

15

scheduling order setting deadlines for Dex Media and the remaining Defendants, to the extent

16

they have been served, to respond to the Amended Complaint (Dkt. #12) and set forth any other

17

required deadlines. They further request that the court stay discovery until after the Motions to

18

Dismiss (Dkt. ##27, 29, 42, 44) are decided. Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ request,

19

and the time for filing a response has expired.

20

This case was initially filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of

21

New York (Dkt. #1). It was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern

22

District of New York. In a Memorandum and Order (Dkt. #5) entered November 12, 2013,

23

District Judge William F. Kuntz reviewed the pro se complaint and found that Plaintiff had not

24

established the federal court had diversity jurisdiction over the claims in the complaint. Plaintiff

25

was therefore ordered to file an amended complaint within thirty days that complied with Rule 8

26

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and stated the basis for federal jurisdiction as well as a

27

short, plain statement of claim against each named defendant. After one or more extensions, an

28

Amended Complaint (Dkt. #12) was filed January 22, 2014.
1

1

Judge Kuntz entered an Order to Show Cause (Dkt. #18) on February 20, 2014, requiring

2

Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be transferred to the United States District Court

3

for the District of Nevada as all of the Defendants reside here. On April 3, 2014, Judge Kuntz

4

entered an Order (Dkt. #22) transferring this case to this district. Defendant Zev Langstein, Bank

5

of America, R.H. Donnelley, Inc., and Paul Padda have all responded to the complaint by filing

6

Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. ##27, 29, 42, 44). Defendants State of Nevada, Yvette Nissen, Albert

7

Torres, Paul Andres, and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department four officers named “John

8

Doe” have not yet made an appearance.

9

A review of the docket indicates that Defendant DEX Internet Company has not yet filed

10

an answer or other responsive pleading. The status report advises the court that Judge Kuntz

11

requires pre-trial motion conference letters to be filed as a pre-requisite to filing a motion to

12

dismiss which effectively stayed the time for a defendant to file a formal response to the

13

complaint. Judge Kuntz set the case for a pre-motion conference for March 7, 2014, but

14

transferred this case prior to the hearing. Given the unique procedural posture of this case at the

15

time it was transferred, the Defendants filing this joint status report request that the court issue a

16

scheduling order setting a deadline for Dex Media and the remaining Defendants who have been

17

served to respond to the amended complaint. The Defendants filing this joint status report also

18

request that the court stay discovery until the motions to dismiss are decided.

19

On June 26, 2014, the court entered a standard discovery plan and scheduling order when

20

the parties had not submitted one in compliance with LR 26-1(e). The court has now had the

21

opportunity to preliminarily review the motions to dismiss under submission to the district judge.

22

All of the motions to dismiss raise subject-matter jurisdiction issues in addition to various other

23

bases for seeking dismissal. Plaintiff’s amended complaint involves numerous allegations of

24

wrongdoing by the multiple Defendants he is attempting to sue. The complaint allegations do

25

not appear to be related, and it appears that Plaintiff is simply combining all of his claims against

26

these Defendants in a single action.

27

Defendants’ request that the court stay discovery until the motions to dismiss are decided.

28

///

Under these circumstances, the court will grant the

2

1

IT IS ORDERED that:

2

1.

The court’s discovery plan and scheduling order (Dkt. #53) is VACATED.

3

2.

A stay of discovery is entered until decision of all dispositive motions.

4

3.

The Defendants who have not yet made an appearance, but who have been served

5
6

shall have until August 1, 2014, in which to respond to the amended complaint.
4.

The parties shall have fourteen days from decision of dispositive motions in

7

which to meet and confer and submit a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order in the

8

event any of Plaintiff’s claims survive.

9

DATED this 2nd day of July, 2014.

10
11
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3