Quinn v. City of Vancouver et al

Filing 130

ORDER denying 118 Motion for Emergency Stay and Renoting 74 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff Quinn's Lawsuit With Prejudice. Noting Date = 7/12/2019. Signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. (MGC)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

CASE NO. C17-5969 BHS

DEBRA QUINN,
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.
CITY OF VANCOUVER, et al.,

11

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PROCEEDINGS AND RE-OPEN
DISCOVERY

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Debra Quinn’s (“Quinn”)

14

emergency motion to stay summary judgment proceedings and re-open discovery. Dkt.

15

118.

16

On November 21, 2017, Quinn filed a complaint against Defendants City of

17

Vancouver (“City”), Eric Holmes, Bronson Potter, and Jonathan Young (collectively

18

“Defendants”) asserting causes of action for unlawful discrimination, harassment,

19

negligence, outrage, and breach of implied contract. Dkt. 1. Relevant to the instant

20

motion, Quinn was an employee of the City when she filed the complaint. Id. ¶ 12.

21
22

ORDER - 1

1

On April 25, 2019, the City filed a motion to dismiss Quinn’s complaint with

2

prejudice. Dkt. 74. 1 On June 12, 2019, Defendants filed motions for summary judgment.

3

Dkts. 100, 102, 107. That same day, the City filed a motion to disqualify Quinn’s

4

counsel. Dkt. 109. On July 8, 2019, Quinn responded to Defendants’ motions for

5

summary judgment. Dkts. 126, 127, 128.

6

On July 2, 2019, Quinn filed the instant motion requesting the Court (1) vacate the

7

noting dates for the pending summary judgment motions, (2) reopen discovery for 60

8

days, (3) postpone further briefing on the summary judgment motions until the Court

9

rules on the motion to dismiss and disqualify, and (4) vacate all remaining trial and

10

pretrial deadlines because the City terminated Quinn’s employment. Dkt. 118 at 1–2. On

11

July 3, 2019, Defendants responded and opposed the motion. Dkts. 120, 121, 125.

12

Quinn did not reply.

13

Quinn’s motion fails for numerous reasons. First, Quinn noted her motion for the

14

first Friday after filing, which violates the local rules of procedure. See Local Rules

15

W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d).

16

Second, until Quinn is granted leave to add new claims to her complaint, assuming

17

one is filed, Quinn has failed to show good cause to vacate the noting date for any

18

pending motion. Moreover, if the Court grants such leave, Quinn may then establish

19
20
21
22

1

This motion was inadvertently terminated on May 15, 2019, and the Court was unaware
that the parties were awaiting resolution. The Clerk shall renote the motion for consideration on
July 12, 2019 with the other dispositive motions.

ORDER - 2

1

good cause to continue the remaining deadlines. Hypothetical claims, however, do not

2

establish good cause to continue a pending trial on actual claims.

3

Third, Quinn fails to meet the requirements of a Rule 56(d) continuance and seems

4

to have substantively responded to the merits of Defendants’ motions without identifying

5

facts that are unavailable. Thus, Quinn’s request to vacate response deadlines is severely

6

undermined by her actual responses.

7

Finally, Quinn provides no legitimate reason to delay consideration of issues in

8

this matter pending resolution of a subsequently-filed state administrative matter, the bar

9

complaint. The Court may disqualify counsel for numerous reasons, including violating

10

the Rules of Professional Conduct. Thus, the Court need not wait for the administrative

11

proceeding to consider the issues presented in the pending motions.

12

Therefore, the Court DENIES Quinn’s emergency motion to stay summary

13

judgment proceedings and re-open discovery. Dkt. 118. The Clerk shall renote Dkt. 74

14

for consideration on July 12, 2019.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated this 10th day of July, 2019.

A

17
18

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3