JQ Solutions et al v. Dahir et al

Filing 41

ORDER that 34 Motion to Stay Order is GRANTED to the extent that the DPSO 32 is AMENDED to strike the portion at page 2:20-21 that reads, "However, the only claim that has not been dismissed is a single count of computer fraud and abuse under 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Plaintiff's breach of contract claim has been dismissed." Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 5/16/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11

JQ SOLUTIONS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MICHAEL DAHIR, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:11-cv-00101-RLH-PAL
ORDER
(Mtn to Stay Order - Dkt. #34)

12
13

This matter is before the court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Order (Dkt. #34). Plaintiff

14

points out that the court’s Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (“DPSO”) (Dkt. #32), entered March

15

12, 2012, erroneously states his breach of contract claim was dismissed. At page 2, lines 20-21, the

16

DPSO provides, “the only claim that has not been dismissed is a single count of computer fraud and

17

abuse under 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim has been dismissed.”

18

The Report of Findings and Recommendation (the “R&R”) (Dkt. #5), entered March 16, 2011,

19

recommended that Plaintiff’s claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1030 be dismissed, but because Plaintiff invoked

20

the court’s diversity jurisdiction and alleged the essential elements of a contract claim arising under

21

Nevada law, the Complaint stated a claim for breach of contract. See R&R at 2:25-3:10. In an Order

22

(Dkt. #12) entered June 1, 2011, District Judge Hunt concluded 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g) provides a private

23

right of action, and he rejected that portion of the R&R. See Order at 2:18-25, 4:19-20. He affirmed

24

the R&R in “all remaining aspects.” Id. at 4:21.

25
26

Thus, Plaintiff is correct. His breach of contract claim remains pending, as does his claim under
18 U.S.C. § 1030.

27
28

Accordingly,
///

1

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Order (Dkt. #34) is GRANTED to the extent

2

that the DPSO (Dkt. #32) is AMENDED to strike the portion at page 2:20-21 that reads, “However, the

3

only claim that has not been dismissed is a single count of computer fraud and abuse under 18 U.S.C.

4

§ 1030. Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim has been dismissed.”

5

Dated this 16th day of May, 2012.

6
7
8

________________________________________
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2