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