Mason et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 15

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' 11 Motion to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance. Responses due by 12/5/2014. Replies due by 12/15/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/20/2014. (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
11
12
13
14
15

ALPHONSO MASON, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
WELLS FARGO BANK, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-01709-JCM-NJK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
STAY
(Docket No. 11)

16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to hold these proceedings in abeyance pending

17

resolution of their motion to remand. Docket No. 11. In particular, Plaintiffs seek an order that, inter alia,

18

Defendants’ motion to dismiss be held in abeyance. See id. at 3. Defendants filed a notice of non-

19

opposition. Docket No. 14. Despite the parties’ apparent agreement that the case should be stayed until

20

the motion to remand is decided,1 the Court will only grant the motion in part.

21

The Court has broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation. Johnson v. Mammoth

22

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992). In reviewing the docket, it appears unlikely to the

23
24
25
1

26
27
28

Defendants’ position is puzzling. On November 18, 2014, Defendants responded to the motion to
remand by indicating that removal was proper and, inter alia, “Defendants filed their motion to dismiss in this
Court on October 23, 2014 (Doc. No. 4) and are hoping to speed this case to a quick resolution.” Docket No.
13 at 4. Contrary to that assertion, on November 20, 2014, Defendants agreed that their motion to dismiss should
not be resolved (or briefed) until after the motion to remand is decided. See Docket No. 14.

1

undersigned that Plaintiffs’ motion to remand will be granted.2 As a result, the Court finds that staying

2

briefing and resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss will likely result only in delay. Cf. Kor Media

3

Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 583 (D. Nev. 2013). The Court will, however, otherwise GRANT

4

the motion to stay proceedings. Accordingly, briefing on the motion to dismiss shall continue. To that end,

5

the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiffs to respond to the motion to dismiss no later than December 5, 2014.3

6

Any reply shall be filed by Defendants no later than December 15, 2014. All other proceedings in this case

7

(including discovery) will be STAYED pending resolution of the motions to remand and to dismiss.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED: November 20, 2014

10

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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

2

The undersigned makes that assertion not to prejudice the outcome of the motion to remand, but
to explain why the requested relief will likely lead to only a delay of proceedings. Moreover, the
undersigned is cognizant that the assigned district judge (who will be deciding the motion to remand) may
view the merits of that motion differently.
3

The Court reminds Plaintiffs of the Court’s order regarding the importance that they timely file a
response to the motion to dismiss, issued on October 23, 2014. See Docket No. 6.
2