Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_10-cv-00327/USCOURTS-ared-4_10-cv-00327-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12131 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1 Chief Judge Holmes established May 5, 2010, as the deadline for amending pleadings in the CHDC action, including

the complaint. On the day the deadline for amending pleadings in the CHDC action expired, the United States, rather than filing

a motion to amend the complaint, filed a motion to dismiss Count II of the complaint in the CHDC action, stating that it intended

to assert the CHDC ADA allegations in a larger Statewide ADA action. The United States acknowledged that there may be

issues concerning duplicative discovery but that it “will make all efforts to avoid duplicative discovery in pursuing the Statewide

ADA action.” Although the United States noted that the State objects to the motion to dismiss the CHDC ADA allegations from

the CHDC action, on May 6, 2010 (the day following the filing of its motion to dismiss in the CHDC action), the United States,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, *

*

 Plaintiff, *

vs. * No. 4:10-CV-0327 SWW 

*

*

STATE OF ARKANSAS, et al., * 

*

 Defendants. *

ORDER

On May 6, 2010, the United States of America filed an action against the State of

Arkansas (the “State”) alleging that the State discriminates against persons with disabilities in

violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). That action, United States v. State of

Arkansas, et al., No. 4:10cv00327 SWW (the “Statewide ADA action”), was assigned to this

Court.

Previously, the United States filed a complaint against the State asserting this same claim

(in Count II of the complaint) with respect to the Conway Human Development Center. That

action, United States of America v. State of Arkansas, et al., No. 4:09cv0033 JLH (the “CHDC

action”), was assigned to Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes.

By Order entered May 14, 2010 [doc.#2], the Court directed that the United States file a

pleading addressing why the Statewide ADA action should not be assigned to Chief Judge

Holmes as a related case to CHDC action and/or as a matter of judicial economy.1

 The United

Case 4:10-cv-00327-JLH Document 14 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 2
without a ruling by Chief Judge Holmes on its motion to dismiss, filed its Statewide ADA action and it was assigned to this

Court. The United States noted on the civil cover sheet filed with the Clerk of Court that the CHDC action was a related case to

the Statewide ADA action but it did not file a Notice of Related Case pursuant to Local Rule 40.1 and General Order No. 39.

Given that the CHDC ADA allegations are still before Chief Judge Homes in Count II of the CHDC action (no ruling

having yet been made on the motion to dismiss and defendants opposing the United States’ motion), and given that the United

States acknowledges there may be issues of duplicative discovery that seemingly should be addressed by the same judge as such

issues arise (should Judge Homes approve of the procedural maneuver of the United States), the Court directed that the United

States file a pleading addressing why the Statewide ADA action should not be assigned to Chief Judge Holmes as a related case

to the CHDC action and/or as a matter of judicial economy.

2 Although the United States argues inter alia that regardless of the motion to dismiss the CHDC ADA allegations in

the CHDC action, the Statewide ADA action does not qualify as a refiling of a “voluntary nonsuit” under Local Rule 40.1,

certainly the dismissal without prejudice of the CHDC ADA claims so that they could later be refiled would constitute a

“voluntary nonsuit” of those claims.

3 The Court directs that the Clerk of Court also file this Order in the CHDC action, United States of America v. State of

Arkansas, et al., No. 4:09cv0033 JLH.

2

States has timely filed its pleading in accordance with this Court’s Order, stating that it reads the

local rules as requiring the random selection of the judge.2

 The State, in turn, has filed a Notice

of Related Case [doc.#13] in the Statewide ADA action requesting that the Statewide ADA

action and the CHDC action be treated as related cases pursuant to Local Rule 40.1 and General

Order 39, and that the Statewide ADA action be reassigned to Chief Judge Holmes for the sake

of avoiding duplicative discovery and to benefit overall judicial economy.

In light of the Notice of Related Case filed in the Statewide ADA action and the

procedural maneuvering of the United States in the CHDC action and the Statewide ADA action

as set forth in this Court’s May 14th Order (the propriety of which has yet to be resolved), the

Court defers to Chief Judge Holmes for a determination of whether the Statewide ADA action

should be reassigned to his docket as a related case to the CHDC action or otherwise.3

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of May 2010.

/s/Susan Webber Wright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:10-cv-00327-JLH Document 14 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 2