Carter v. Fort Bend Independent School District et al

Filing 112

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 89 Defendant Richard L. Muller's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending this Court's Rulings on Defendants' Dispositive Motions is GRANTED. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 10/30/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6
GWEDOLYN CARTER,
7
8
9
10
11

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FORT BEND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
)
DISTRICT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:17-cv-01930-RFB-CWH
ORDER

12
13

Presently before the court is Defendant Richard L. Muller’s Motion to Stay Proceedings

14

Pending this Court’s Rulings on Defendants’ Dispositive Motions (ECF No. 89), filed on October

15

6, 2017. Defendants Yolanda Humphrey and Perdue, Brandon, Fielder, Collins & Mott, LLP filed

16

a joinder (ECF No. 91) to the motion on October 9, 2017. Defendant Ford Bend County Municipal

17

Utility District #2 filed a joinder (ECF No. 93) to the motion on October 10, 2017. Plaintiff

18

Gwendolyn Carter and the other defendants did not respond to the motion.

19

Defendant Muller requests that the court stay this case, including the deadline to respond to

20

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 61), pending the court’s rulings on Defendants’

21

various motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 15, 29, 38, 51, 54, 71) for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack

22

of subject matter jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, and other defenses. Defendant Muller

23

argues that the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this case would not be promoted by

24

requiring any further action on the part of the defendants at this time. Given that the motion is

25

unopposed, the court will grant it. See Local Rule 7-2(d) (stating that “[t]he failure of an opposing

26

party to file points and authorities in response to any motion, except a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P.

27

56 or a motion for attorney’s fees, constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.”)

28

///

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Richard L. Muller’s Motion to Stay

2

Proceedings Pending this Court’s Rulings on Defendants’ Dispositive Motions (ECF No. 89) is

3

GRANTED. All deadlines in this case are stayed pending the United States district judge’s rulings

4

on the pending motions to dismiss.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the court denies any of the pending motions to dismiss,

6

the remaining parties must meet and confer and file a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order

7

with 21 days of the court’s ruling on the relevant motion to dismiss.

8
9

DATED: October 30, 2017

10
11
12

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

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