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)

Download PDF
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?