Dahlstrom v. United States of America et al

Filing 46

ORDER regarding Plaintiff's 39 Motion for a Rule 56(d) Continuance, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

RAJU T. DAHLSTROM,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,
Case No. C16-1874RSL
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

ORDER REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A
RULE 56(d) CONTINUANCE

Defendants.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion to Deny or Continue

14

Defendant United States of America Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).”

15

Dkt. # 39. The United States seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s claims on the ground that it has

16

not waived sovereign immunity for employment decisions of the Sauk-Suiattle Indian

17

Tribe or enforcement decisions of the Tribe’s Chief of Police. In the alternative, the

18

United States argues that if the Tribe is considered a federal actor and the Federal Tort

19

Claims Act (“FTCA”) applies, the claims are nevertheless barred by the discretionary

20

function exception of the FTCA. The United States also seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s

21

intentional tort claims as barred by § 2680(h) of the FTCA and/or not cognizable under

22

Washington law.

23

Plaintiff argues that a continuance is necessary so that he can take discovery

24

regarding the authenticity of a handbook attached as an exhibit to the United States’

25

motion (Dkt. # 38-1) and challenge the factual assertions regarding the existence of a

26
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR A RULE 56(d) CONTINUANCE - 1

1

contract contained in the Declaration of Jerin Falcon (Dkt. # 38-2). Plaintiff makes no

2

effort to show that the handbook will have any material effect on the outcome of the

3

motion. Whether employment decisions are encompassed by a federal contract or

4

agreement under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975

5

(“ISDEAA”) is, however, of material importance to defendant’s first argument. The Court

6

will, therefore, exercise its discretion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) to DENY the United

7

States’ motion to dismiss on the ground that the Tribe’s employment decisions are not

8

encompassed by a federal contract or agreement under the ISDEAA.

9

Nevertheless, plaintiff has not met his burden under Rule 56(d) of showing that

10

discovery is necessary to respond to the other arguments raised in the motion to dismiss.

11

Those issues can and should be considered at the outset of the case. Plaintiff’s response to

12

the discretionary function and intentional tort arguments is due as currently scheduled on

13

October 30, 2017.

14
15

Dated this 19th day of October, 2017.

16

A

17

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR A RULE 56(d) CONTINUANCE - 2