Computerized Screening, Inc. v. Healthsport, Inc.
Filing
39
ORDER that 27 Motion to Stay is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/11/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
COMPUTERIZED SCREENING, INC.,
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
HEALTHSPOT, INC.,
14
Defendant.
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:14-cv-00573-RFB-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STAY
(Docket No. 27)
16
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay this proceeding pending the resolution
17
of a “parallel action by identical parties in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.”
18
Docket No. 27. In deciding whether to grant a stay, the Court is guided by the objectives of Federal
19
Rule of Civil Procedure 1 to ensure a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.”
20
Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The Court finds that a stay would
21
be contrary to the goals of Rule 1. Moreover, the matter in the Northern District of Ohio has concluded.
22
HealthSpot, Inc. v. Computerized Screening, Inc., 2015 WL 5172977, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 3, 2015).
23
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to stay is hereby DENIED.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
DATED: September 11, 2015
26
27
28
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate 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?