Gamestop Inc. v. Bridgett, et al.,
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
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,
This action involves a complaint for declaratory judgment as to the application of
California’s Secondhand Dealer Law to Plaintiff Game Stop, Inc. (“Plaintiff”). Defendants
Stephanie Bridgett and Michael Hestrin (collectively “Defendants”) move for a continuance of
the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 31 & 33.) Plaintiff objects
to Defendants’ request. (ECF No. 32.) Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, the Court hereby
DENIES Defendants’ request for a continuance and GRANTS Defendants’ request to stay
The Court is afforded broad discretion to manage its calendar. United States v. Batiste,
868 F.2d 1089, 1091 n.4 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is currently
calendared for the same day as Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants argue the motion for
summary judgment should be continued because the motion to dismiss will likely result in a
dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Without determining the merits of Defendants’ motion to
dismiss, the Court notes the possibility that Defendants motion may be denied. It is economical
for the matters to be heard on the same day so as to prevent delay in this matter if Defendants are
unsuccessful in their motion. Accordingly, Defendants’ request for a continuance is hereby
As to discovery, Defendants are correct that the Court is similarly afforded broad
discretion in staying discovery in deference to potentially dispositive motions. Wenger v.
Monroe, 282 F.3d 1068, 1077 (9th Cir. 2002). In light of Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment and Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the need for discovery may never arise.
Accordingly, the Court hereby STAYS discovery pending the resolution of the parties’ motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 23, 2017
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
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?