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

Filing 62

ORDER Granting 57 Motion to Stay Discovery While 48 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint is Pending. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 7/23/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
MARIO P. TELLO,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
BANK OF AMERICA N.A., et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01040-GMN-NJK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY DISCOVERY
(Docket No. 57)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of

17

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Docket 57; see also Docket No. 48 (“motion to dismiss”).

18

Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 61. The Court finds the matter properly

19

resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For good cause shown and for the reasons

20

discussed below, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the

21

motion to dismiss.1
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of

22
23

discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278

24

F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The case law in this District makes clear that motions to stay

25

discovery may be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially

26
27
28

1

Because the Court grants the motion to stay, it denies without prejudice the discovery plan
submitted by Plaintiff. See Docket No. 58.

1

dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a

2

“preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the

3

plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. Id. at 602-603.

4

The Court finds these factors are present here. First, the motion to dismiss is potentially

5

case-dispositive as it challenges all pending claims. Second, the motion to dismiss can be decided

6

without additional discovery. Third, the Court has taken a preliminary peek at the merits of the

7

motion to dismiss and believes Plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief.2
Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is hereby GRANTED. In the event that the

8
9

motion to dismiss is not granted in full, the parties shall submit a joint status report to the

10

undersigned within 14 days of the issuance of the order resolving the motion to dismiss. That status

11

report shall indicate what discovery needs to be completed and shall provide a proposed plan for

12

completing it.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED: July 23, 2013

15
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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

2

Conducting this preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the
assigned district judge who will decide the motion to dismiss may have a different view of its merits.
See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of that motion is
not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id.
2