Pavlik v. United Airlines, Inc.

Filing 23

ORDER Granting 22 Stipulation to Stay Requirements of Fed.R.Civ.Proc.26. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 7/14/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

Case 2:15-cv-00885-APG-PAL Document 22 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 4

REED SMITH LLP

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

1 ROBERT J. CALDWELL
Nevada Bar No. 007637
2 WILLIAM D. SCHULLER
Nevada Bar No. 011271
3 KOLESAR & LEATHAM
400 South Rampart Boulevard, Suite 400
4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
Telephone: [phone]
5 Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
6
7 TIFFANY R. THOMAS
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
8 REED SMITH LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 1800
9 San Francisco, California 94105-3659
Telephone: [phone]
10 Facsimile: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
11
JULIA Y. TRANKIEM
12 Admitted Pro Hac Vice
REED SMITH LLP
13 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
Los Angeles, California 90071-1514
14 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
15 Email:
16 Attorneys for Defendant,
UNITED AIRLINES, INC.
17
18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

20 THEODORE PAVLIK, an individual,

No.: 2:15-CV-00885-APG-PAL

21

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO STAY REQUIREMENTS OF
FED. R. CIV. PROC. 26

22

Plaintiff,
vs.

23 UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a foreign corporation;
DOES 1 through 10 inclusive; and ROES
24 CORPORATIONS/ENTITIES 1 through 10
inclusive,
25
Defendants.
26
27
28

–1–

Case 2:15-cv-00885-APG-PAL Document 22 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 4

1

Plaintiff Theodore Pavlik and Defendant United Airlines, Inc., by and through its undersigned

2 counsel, stipulate to, and request, an order staying discovery and staying compliance with Rule 26 of the
3 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 26-1. The grounds for this stipulation are set forth below.
4

The power to stay discovery proceedings “is an incident of the well recognized power inherent in

5 every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself,
6 for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); Stern v. United
7 States, 563 F. Supp. 484, 489 (D. Nev. 1983) (“Every court has the inherent power to stay causes on its
8 docket with a view to avoiding duplicative litigation, inconsistent results, and waste of effort by itself, the
9 litigants and counsel”). A district court has wide latitude in controlling discovery, and its rulings will not be

REED SMITH LLP

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

10 overturned in the absence of clear abuse of discretion. Volk v. D.A. Davidson & Co., 816 F.2d 1406, 141611 17 (9th Cir. 1987). Common examples of situations in which a motion to dismiss may warrant a stay of
12 discovery include when the motion raises jurisdiction, venue, or immunity as a preliminary issue to be
13 decided. See Twin Cities Fire Ins. Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wasau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989).
14

Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 26-1 require parties to confer

15 regarding discovery to develop a discovery plan and scheduling order after a defendant answers a
16 complaint or otherwise appears in the action. Defendant has appeared in this action. However, the Court is
17 confronted with threshold questions as to the appropriate or most suitable forum in which this case should
18 be litigated. Currently pending, but not fully briefed, before the Court are: (1) Defendant’s Motion to
19 Dismiss (#10); and (2) Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue (#12). As explained in the Motion to
20 Transfer, Defendant argues that this case should be litigated in the Central District of California. The Court
21 granted Plaintiff an extension of briefing dates relative to these motions such that briefing will not be
22 complete until the end of July. Until the Motion to Transfer is decided such that this Court determines the
23 appropriate forum for this case, all parties agree that it would not be economical, efficient, or wise to
24 commence Rule 26 procedures and obligations as well as discovery in general. After the Court decides,
25 and the parties thereby know, in which forum this case will be litigated, the parties can address Rule 26 and
26 discovery issues in accordance with the applicable forum’s rules. Accordingly, the parties request that the
27 Court order a stay of discovery and stay of compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and LR 26-1 pending the
28 Court’s rulings on the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Transfer.

–2–

Case 2:15-cv-00885-APG-PAL Document 22 Filed 07/09/15 Page 3 of 4

1

The parties further stipulate and agree that the stay shall terminate after the Court renders its

2 decisions on the pending motions, and the Parties will conduct the conference mandated by Rule 26(f) and
3 Local Rule 26-1 within fourteen (14) days thereof.
4 Dated: July 9, 2015

Dated: July 9, 2015

5 ESTEBAN-TRINIDAD LAW, P.C.

REED SMITH LLP

6

/s/ M. Lani Esteban-Trinidad
7 M. LANI ESTEBAN-TRINIDAD, ESQ.
4315 N. Rancho Drive, Ste. 110
8 Las Vegas, Nevada 89130
Telephone: [phone]
9 Fax: [phone]

REED SMITH LLP

and
WILLIAM D. SCHULLER, ESQ.
ROBERT J. CALDWELL, ESQ.
KOLESAR & LEATHAM

10
A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

/s/ Julia Y. Trankiem
TIFFANY RENEE THOMAS, ESQ.
JULIA Y. TRANKIEM, ESQ.

Attorney for Plaintiff,
11 THEODORE PAVLIK
12

Attorneys for Defendant,
UNITED AIRLINES, INC.

13
14

[PROPOSED] ORDER

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 14
Dated: _____________________, 2015.

18
19

_______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 Respectfully submitted by:
21 JULIA Y. TRANKIEM
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
22 REED SMITH LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
23 Los Angeles, California 90071-1514
Telephone: [phone]
24 Facsimile: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
25
Attorneys for Defendant,
26 UNITED AIRLINES, INC.
27
28

–3–

Case 2:15-cv-00885-APG-PAL Document 22 Filed 07/09/15 Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2
3
4

5
6
7

8

I hereby certify that I am an employee of Reed Smith LLP and that on the 9th day of July, 2015,
I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO STAY REQUIREMENTS OF FED. R CIV. PROC. 26 in the following manner:

(ELECTRONIC SERVICE) Pursuant to Rule 5-4 of the Local Rules of Civil Practice of the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada, the above-referenced document was electronically filed on
the date hereof and served through the Notice of Electronic Filing automatically generated by that Court's
facilities.

9

~ /

10
e
~
v

0

11

0

~

0

.!!
!:!

<n

0... -5
...l "
..J .:

:r:

"0

t: §
~ .E

C/) :E

Q

u.l
u.l

~

12
13
14

~

t:

0:: [
~

~

]

]
<

~ ( _e?~

~ Atieil1J)Oyee of Reed Smith LLP

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-