Coltharp v. United States of America, No. 2:2014cv00233 - Document 30 (M.D. Ala. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, upon further consideration, it is ORDERED that:(1) The court's prior order denying jurisdictional discovery (doc. no. [2) is vacated. (2) The motions for leave to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery (doc. nos. 16 , 20 , and 25 ) are granted. (3) Plaintiff shall have until February 20, 2018, to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/22/2017. (kh, )

Download PDF
Coltharp v. United States of America Doc. 30 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION LORI COLTHARP, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14cv233-MHT (WO) OPINION AND ORDER In response plaintiff to defendant’s repeatedly jurisdictional moved discovery. motion for to leave The court dismiss, to conduct denied those motions for discovery, but in so doing, explained that “[i]f it should appear that the dispositive motion cannot be resolved without discovery, the court will then allow discovery.” motion to dismiss, Order (doc. no. 29). defendant asserts that In its it is entitled to the discretionary function exception under the Federal Resolution determine Torts of Claims this whether Act, motion there was 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). requires a the court to mandatory policy or Dockets.Justia.com regulation actor’s that eliminated discretion. policy or unable to publicly Defendant regulation rebut the exists, that available involved asserts and or that no such has plaintiff argument. statutes government been However, regulations, practically difficult for her to do so.” “absent it is Willet v. U.S., No. 2:12-CV-296, 2013 WL 3280323 *4 (M.D. Ala. June 27, 2013) (Watkins, J.). It is now apparent that limited jurisdictional discovery is warranted to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to seek the evidence needed to contest defendant’s assertion. *** Accordingly, upon further consideration, it is ORDERED that: (1) The court’s prior order denying jurisdictional discovery (doc. no. 29) is vacated. (2) The motions for leave to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery (doc. nos. 16, 20, and 25) are granted. 2 (3) Plaintiff shall have until February 20, 2018, to conduct jurisdictional discovery. DONE, this the 22nd day of December, 2017. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.