Wilhite v. Awe Kualawaache Care Center, CV 18-80-BLG-SPW. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Montana
Number: infdco20180824i37
Visitors: 9
Filed: Aug. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2018
Summary: ORDER SUSAN P. WATTERS , District Judge . Before the Court is the Defendants' motion to vacate the scheduling conference set for August 24, 2018. (Doc. 14). The Defendants argue discovery is premature until the Court rules on the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Defendants additionally argue they "intend" to file an additional motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. In her response brief, Plaintiff argues the case should not be delayed due to
Summary: ORDER SUSAN P. WATTERS , District Judge . Before the Court is the Defendants' motion to vacate the scheduling conference set for August 24, 2018. (Doc. 14). The Defendants argue discovery is premature until the Court rules on the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Defendants additionally argue they "intend" to file an additional motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. In her response brief, Plaintiff argues the case should not be delayed due to ..
More
ORDER
SUSAN P. WATTERS, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Defendants' motion to vacate the scheduling conference set for August 24, 2018. (Doc. 14). The Defendants argue discovery is premature until the Court rules on the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Defendants additionally argue they "intend" to file an additional motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. In her response brief, Plaintiff argues the case should not be delayed due to pretrial motions. In reply, the Defendants assert they are protected by sovereign immunity and the Court should vacate the scheduling conference "pending resolution of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss based on tribal sovereign immunity."
However, the Defendants misstate the record. The Defendants have not filed a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. And because the Court already denied the motion to dismiss based on subject matter jurisdiction, there are no pending pretrial motions which weigh in favor of granting the motion to vacate. The motion to vacate (Doc. 14) is therefore denied.
Source: Leagle
