Tello v. Bank Of America, N.A. et al

Filing 56

ORDER Granting 55 Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification on Discovery Status. The parties must submit either a joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order, or a renewed motion or stipulation to stay discovery pending the Courts ruling on the Motion to Dismiss no later than 7/15/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 7/8/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

MARIO P. TELLO,

10
Plaintiff,
11
vs.
12
BANK OF AMERICA NA, et al,
13
14

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-01040-GMN-NJK

ORDER

15
16
17

This matter came before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification of
Discovery Status (Dkt. # 55).

18

On May 24, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the Defendants in the Eighth

19

Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada. On June 19, 2012, the Defendants petitioned to

20

remove the case to this Court. Dkt. # 1. On June 26, 2012, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss

21

the Complaint. Dkt. #5. The Court entered a scheduling order on August 27, 2012, which set the

22

discovery deadline for December 21, 2012. Dkt. #22.

23

On October 29, 2012, the Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Discovery While Defendants’

24

Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 5] is Pending. Dkt. #33. The Court granted that motion on October 30,

25

2012, thereby staying all discovery in this case until the Court ruled on Dkt. #5. Dkt. #34.

26

....

27

....

28

....

1

On March 29, 2013, the Court ruled on Dkt. #5. Dkt. #45. Since the order staying discovery

2

explicitly stated that discovery was stayed only during the pendency of Dkt. #5, which is no longer

3

pending, discovery in this case is no longer stayed.1

4

Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. # 55) is GRANTED.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than July 15, 2013, the parties must submit

7

either a joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order, or a renewed motion or stipulation to

8

stay discovery pending the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. Any motion or stipulation to

9

stay discovery must contain an analysis of the proper standards to stay discovery pending a motion

10
11

to dismiss.
DATED this 8th

day of July, 2013.

12
13
14

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that, in response to the ruling on Dkt. #5, the Plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint on April 22, 2013. Dkt. # 47. On May 7, 2013, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint With Prejudice. Dkt. #48. The stay of discovery, however,
was granted solely during the pendency of Dkt. #5, which is no longer pending. Dkt. 34.
-2-