LYTTLE v. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
Filing
43
NOTICE by Dean Caputo, Dashanta Faucette, Robert Kendall, The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA of decision by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit- Order Denying Transfer) (Whitman, James) Modified on 5/25/2011 to name exhibit attachment. (Jenkins, C.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
Case No. 4:10-cv-142-D
____________________________________
)
MARK DANIEL LYTTLE,
)
)
NOTICE OF DECISION BY THE
Plaintiff,
)
U.S. JUDICIAL PANEL ON
)
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
v.
)
BY ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
NOTICE OF DECISION
Pursuant to this Court’s Order of May 24, 2011 (Docket No. 42), all federal defendants in
this action (the United States, Dashanta Faucette, Dean Caputo, and Robert Kendall) respectfully
notify the Court that in an Order dated April 8, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL Panel”) denied the federal defendants’ “Motion for Transfer of
Actions Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for Centralized Pretrial Proceedings.”1 In light of the
MDL Panel’s Order and this Court’s Order granting plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint,
the federal defendants respectfully submit that a stay of this action is no longer necessary or
appropriate.2 Instead, counsel for the federal defendants and the plaintiff are in the process of
conferring on a date by which the federal defendants will answer or otherwise respond to
plaintiff’s amended complaint. The federal defendants expect to file a motion requesting leave of
1
2
A copy of that Order is attached to this Notice.
Before the MDL Panel issued its order, plaintiff’s counsel informed counsel for the
other parties to this action that plaintiff intended to seek leave to amend his complaint. Plaintiff
filed his motion to amend on April 27, 2011 (Docket No. 40).
Court to answer or otherwise respond by the agreed-upon date once plaintiff has filed his
amended complaint with the Court, per the Court’s Order.
Respectfully submitted this 24th day of May 2011,
TONY WEST
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO, JR.
Acting Director, Torts Branch
/s/ James R. Whitman
JAMES R. WHITMAN
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Torts Branch, Civil Division
P.O. Box 7146, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-7146
Tel:
(202) 616-4169
Fax:
(202) 616-4314
E-mail:
james.whitman@usdoj.gov
D.C. Bar No. 987694
DAVID G. CUTLER
Trial Attorney, Torts Branch
GEORGE E.B. HOLDING
United States Attorney
W. ELLIS BOYLE
Assistant United States Attorney
Civil Division
310 New Bern Avenue
Suite 800 Federal Building
Raleigh, NC 27601-1461
Tel:
(9l9) 856-4530
Fax:
(919) 856-4821
E-mail:
ellis.boyle@usdoj.gov
N.C. Bar No. 33826
Attorneys for the United States, Dashanta Faucette,
Dean Caputo, and Robert Kendall
-2-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify under penalty of perjury that on May 24, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing
“Notice of Decision” using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such
filing to the following counsel of record:
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF:
Jeremy L. McKinney
jeremy@mckinneyandjustice.com
Ann Marie Dooley
annmarie@mckinneyandjustice.com
Michael E. Johnson
michael.johnson@troutmansanders.com
Brian P. Watt
brian.watt@troutmansanders.com
Alexandria J. Reyes
alex.reyes@troutmansanders.com
Katherine L. Parker
acluncklp@nc.rr.com
Judy Rabinovitz
jrabinovitz@aclu.org
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION:
Joseph Finarelli
jfinarelli@ncdoj.gov
/s/ James R. Whitman
JAMES R. WHITMAN
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Torts Branch, Civil Division
P.O. Box 7146, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-7146
Tel:
(202) 616-4169
Fax:
(202) 616-4314
E-mail:
james.whitman@usdoj.gov
D.C. Bar No. 987694
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?