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.)

Download PDF
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?