Wilson et al v. United States of America
Filing
25
ORDER Granting 24 Unopposed Motion to Continue Hearing. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the settlement conference scheduled for 1/11/2019, is VACATED and will be rescheduled at a later date. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 1/4/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
DAYLE ELIESON
United States Attorney
District of Nevada
TROY K. FLAKE
Assistant United States Attorney
501 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
702-388-6336
Troy.Flake@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for the United States
7
8
9
10
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
MICHELLE WILSON, et al.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02863-APG-VCF
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
CONTINUE SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE DUE TO LAPSE OF
APPROPRIATIONS
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
13
14
The United States respectfully requests that the Court continue the settlement
15
conference scheduled in this matter on January 11, 2019, due to the lapse in appropriations
16
(partial government shutdown) and respectfully requests that it be re-scheduled after the
17
partial government shutdown is resolved. Plaintiffs do not oppose this request. The reasons
18
for this request are as follows:
19
1.
At midnight on December 21, 2018, the continuing resolution that had been
20
funding the Department of Justice expired and appropriations to the Department lapsed.
21
The Department does not know when funding will be restored by Congress.
22
2.
Absent an appropriation or continuing resolution, Executive Branch
23
employees are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited
24
circumstances, including “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection
25
of property.” 31 U.S.C. § 1342. The instant lawsuit does not appear to meet such criteria
26
because it is a tort claim arising out of alleged medical malpractice. The lapse in
27
appropriations also prevents the United States Attorney’s Office from consulting with
28
agency and Department officials who have authority settle in this case.
1
1
2
3
3.
On September 25, 2018, the Court stayed this case so the parties could
participate in a settlement conference. ECF No. 15.
4.
This Court scheduled a settlement conference on January 11, 2019. ECF
4
No. 23. However, due to the partial government shutdown, Department employees cannot
5
meaningfully participate in the settlement conference.
6
7
8
9
10
11
5.
Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests that the Court continue
the settlement conference until after the partial government shutdown concludes.
6.
Defendant will notify Plaintiff and the Court as soon as Congress has
appropriated funds for the Department or enacted another continuing resolution and
undersigned counsel can resume usual civil litigation duties.
Therefore, although we greatly regret any disruption caused to the Court and the
12
other litigants, Defendant hereby moves to continue the settlement conference until
13
Department employees are permitted to resume their usual civil litigation functions.
14
Respectfully submitted this 4th day of January 2019.
15
DAYLE ELIESON
United States Attorney
16
/s/ Troy K. Flake
TROY K. FLAKE
Assistant United States Attorney
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that the settlement
conference scheduled for
January 11, 2019, is
VACATED and will be
rescheduled at a later date.
IT IS SO ORDERED:
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DATED:
27
28
2
1-4-2019
1
Certificate of Service
2
I hereby certify that on January 4, 2019, I electronically filed and served the
3
foregoing UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
4
with the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
5
using the CM/ECF system.
6
7
/s/ Troy K. Flake
TROY K. FLAKE
Assistant United States Attorney
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?