Carter v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.

Filing 14

ORDER granting 11 Stipulation to stay discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 5/19/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

Case 2:15-cv-00178-GMN-CWH Document 11 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

ROBERT F. FRIEDMAN, ESQ., TEXAS Bar # 24007207
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1500
Lock Box 116
Dallas, Texas 75201-2931
Telephone:
[phone]
Fax No.:
[phone]
(Pro Hac Vice Application to be filed)
ROGER L. GRANDGENETT, II, ESQ., Bar # 6323
LITTLER MENDELSON
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937
Telephone:
702.862.8800
Fax No.:
702.862.8811
Attorneys for Defendant
RENT-A-CENTER, INC.

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

13
14
15

CHAD CARTER, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated,

16

Plaintiff,

17

v.

18

RENT-A-CENTER, INC.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00178-GMN-CWH
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO STAY DISCOVERY

19
Defendant.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Littler
Mendelson,
P.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3960 HOWARD HUGHES PARKWAY

Defendant RENT-A-CENTER, INC. (“Defendant”) and Plaintiff CHAD CARTER
(“Plaintiff”), by and through their respective attorneys, and do hereby stipulate and request that the
Court stay discovery until an Order is issued on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike
Class Action Claims, or Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration (Dkt. Nos. 7, 8 & 9).
///
///
///

Case 2:15-cv-00178-GMN-CWH Document 11 Filed 05/18/15 Page 2 of 4

1

Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery including the decision to allow or

2

deny discovery. See e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). In evaluating

3

the propriety of an order staying or limiting discovery while a dispositive motion is pending, the

4

court considers the goal of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, which provides that the Rules shall

5

“be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every

6

action.” With Rule 1 as its prime directive, the court must decide whether it is more just to speed the

7

parties along in discovery while a dispositive motion is pending or to delay discovery to accomplish

8

the inexpensive determination of the case. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp.,

9

175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997); see also Twin City Fire Ins. v. Employers Insurance of

10

Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989).

11

Further, in assessing a request to stay discovery, the court takes a “preliminary peek” at the

12

merits of the dispositive motion. Tradebay, LLC, v. Ebay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011).

13

This “preliminary peek” does not prejudge the outcome of the motion; it merely evaluates whether

14

an order staying discovery is warranted. Id. Common examples of situations in which good cause

15

has been found to stay discovery are when jurisdiction, venue, or immunity are preliminary issues.

16

Id. Ultimately, the party seeking the stay “carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing why

17

discovery should be denied.” Id. (citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th

18

Cir.1975)).

19

Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss, Strike Class Action Claims, and Compel Individual

20

Arbitration (Dkt. Nos. 7, 8 & 9) warrant a stay in discovery. First, the Motions are potentially

21

dispositive of the entire case. Defendant contends that Plaintiff is precluded from litigating his

22

claims because he entered into a Consumer Arbitration Agreement in which he agreed to arbitrate

23

his claims in an individual capacity – not on a class basis and not in court. As the Court is aware, the

24

Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) “leaves no place for the exercise of discretion by the district court,

25

but instead mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as

26

to which an arbitration agreement has been signed.” Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S.

27

213, 218 (1985).

28

complaint and that Plaintiff be compelled to arbitrate his claims individually. Plaintiff intends to
2.

Littler
Mendelson,
P.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3960 HOWARD HUGHES PARKWAY

Accordingly, Defendant has requested the complete dismissal of Plaintiff’s

Case 2:15-cv-00178-GMN-CWH Document 11 Filed 05/18/15 Page 3 of 4

1

dispute the legal arguments made in Defendants’ Motions and will be filing an Opposition.

2

However, the parties agree that the Motions are of the type warranting a stay of discovery.

3

Second, neither party will suffer hardship or inequity as a result of stay because further

4

discovery is unjustified at this point. Since Defendant has moved to dismiss the entire case, Plaintiff

5

has not been apprised of which factual allegations Defendant intends to admit and which factual

6

allegations Defendant intends to deny.

7

Defendant intends to assert. Plaintiff believes this would severely limit his opportunity to conduct

8

full discovery while the Motions are pending. Additionally, the parties agree that discovery is not

9

necessary prior to the Court’s resolution of the legal issues raised by Defendant’s Motions to Strike

10

Class Action Claims and Compel Individual Arbitration. Where, as here, an arbitration agreement

11

governed by the FAA covers a dispute, resolving that dispute is exclusively committed to the arbitral

12

forum. Allowing discovery to proceed would be contrary to the FAA itself, the national policy

13

favoring arbitration, and a long line of cases upholding arbitration agreements. Moreover, requiring

14

the parties to conduct discovery on class claims that may not be properly before the Court would

15

result in an unnecessary expenditure of resources and is particularly prejudicial to Defendant.

Nor has Plaintiff been apprised of the defenses that

16

Third, similar to the situation in Little, this is a case where a temporary stay of discovery will

17

further the goals of judicial economy, control of the Court’s docket, and an inexpensive

18

determination of the case. 863 F.2d 681. Ordering the parties to proceed with discovery could

19

potentially clog the Court’s docket with discovery disputes on class claims that may be dismissed

20

through compelled arbitration. Additionally, the Court has recognized the importance of resolving

21

arbitration issues at the earliest possible stage in litigation as a way of furthering the inexpensive

22

determination of the case. Additionally, the stay is requested for a limited and reasonable amount of

23

time - until the Court decides any of Defendant’s Motions.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

Littler
Mendelson,
P.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3960 HOWARD HUGHES PARKWAY

3.

Case 2:15-cv-00178-GMN-CWH Document 11 Filed 05/18/15 Page 4 of 4

1

Accordingly, the parties have made the strong showing necessary to support their joint

2

request to stay discovery until any of Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss, Strike Class Action Claims,

3

and Compel Individual Arbitration (Dkt. Nos. 7, 8 & 9) are decided. For the reasons articulated

4

above, the Court should stay discovery until the first Order has been issued on any of Defendant’s

5

Motions. If some or all of Plaintiff’s claims survive, counsel for both parties will hold the Rule 26(f)

6

conference and submit a Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order at such future date to be

7

ordered by the Court.

8

Dated: May 18, 2015

Dated: May 18, 2015

9

Respectfully submitted,

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Danny J. Horen, Esq.
DANNY J. HOREN, ESQ.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC

/s/ Roger L. Grandgenett, II, Esq.
ROGER L. GRANDGENETT, II, ESQ.
ROBERT F. FRIEDMAN, ESQ.
LITTLER MENDELSON

10
11
12
13
14

Attorney for Plaintiff
CHAD CARTER

Attorneys for Defendant
RENT-A-CENTER, INC.

15
16
17

ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this _______ day of ______________, 2015.

18
19

_________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22

DATED: May 19, 2015
Firmwide:133564151.2 070527.1073

23
24
25
26
27
28
Littler
Mendelson,
P.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3960 HOWARD HUGHES PARKWAY

4.