Gamestop Inc. v. Bridgett, et al.,

Filing 34

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 05/23/17 ORDERING that the Motions for Continuance are DENIED; discovery is STAYED pending the resolution of the parties' 9 24 Motions. (Benson, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GAMESTOP, INC., 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 2:17-cv-00719-TLN-KJN Plaintiff, v. ORDER STEPHANIE A. BRIDGETT, District Attorney, Shasta County District Attorney’s Office, in her official capacity; MICHAEL HESTRIN, District Attorney, Riverside County District Attorney’s Office, in his official capacity, Defendants. 18 19 20 This action involves a complaint for declaratory judgment as to the application of 21 California’s Secondhand Dealer Law to Plaintiff Game Stop, Inc. (“Plaintiff”). Defendants 22 Stephanie Bridgett and Michael Hestrin (collectively “Defendants”) move for a continuance of 23 the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 31 & 33.) Plaintiff objects 24 to Defendants’ request. (ECF No. 32.) Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, the Court hereby 25 DENIES Defendants’ request for a continuance and GRANTS Defendants’ request to stay 26 discovery. 27 The Court is afforded broad discretion to manage its calendar. United States v. Batiste, 28 868 F.2d 1089, 1091 n.4 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is currently 1 1 calendared for the same day as Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants argue the motion for 2 summary judgment should be continued because the motion to dismiss will likely result in a 3 dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Without determining the merits of Defendants’ motion to 4 dismiss, the Court notes the possibility that Defendants motion may be denied. It is economical 5 for the matters to be heard on the same day so as to prevent delay in this matter if Defendants are 6 unsuccessful in their motion. Accordingly, Defendants’ request for a continuance is hereby 7 DENIED. 8 As to discovery, Defendants are correct that the Court is similarly afforded broad 9 discretion in staying discovery in deference to potentially dispositive motions. Wenger v. 10 Monroe, 282 F.3d 1068, 1077 (9th Cir. 2002). In light of Plaintiff’s motion for summary 11 judgment and Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the need for discovery may never arise. 12 Accordingly, the Court hereby STAYS discovery pending the resolution of the parties’ motions. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 23, 2017 15 16 17 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?