Bartech Systems International, Inc. v. Mobile Simple Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 26

ORDER Denying 23 Motion to Stay and Denying 25 Motion for Hearing. Defendants may renew those motions no later than 1/25/2016. Any response shall be filed no later than 1/26/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 01/22/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10
11
12
13
14

BARTECH SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
MOBILE SIMPLE SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-02422-MMD-NJK
ORDER

(Docket Nos. 23, 25)

15

Pending before the Court are emergency motions to stay and for a “Rule 16 conference.” Docket

16

Nos. 23, 25. Although not entirely clear, it appears the motions seek the stay of all proceedings,

17

including deferring briefing and resolution of the pending motion for a preliminary injunction, until the

18

Court holds the requested “conference.” See, e.g., Docket No. 23 at 2. The nature of this pretrial

19

conference is not fully explained, although Defendants assert they wish to finalize a settlement and

20

discuss terms of a preliminary injunction. See, e.g., id. Moreover, it is unclear why Defendants believe

21

Court intervention is beneficial at this point, especially considering the undersigned has no previous

22

experience with this newly-filed case while counsel apparently have significant experience. Compare

23

Docket No. 1 (petition of removal filed December 18, 2015) with Docket No. 23 at 3 (“[t]he parties have

24

litigated this case and engaged in discovery for nearly a year when Plaintiff petitioned to remove the

25

instant matter to this Court”).1

26
27
28

1

The Court generally does not order parties to appear for a settlement conference when a motion for
such a conference is opposed. See, e.g., Cornett v. Gawker media, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 120214, *4
(D. Nev. Aug. 28, 2014) (quoting McCarty v. Roos, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 139358 (D. Nev. Sept. 27, 2013)).

1

In short, the pending motions are DENIED without prejudice. Defendants may renew those

2

motions no later than January 25, 2016. Any renewed motion must more clearly indicate what relief

3

Defendants seek from this Court, in addition to the request to delay the briefing and decision on the

4

pending motion for preliminary injunction. To the extent Defendants seek a settlement conference, they

5

need to clearly state that form of relief, explain why a settlement conference with the Court’s

6

involvement is preferable to counsel seeking resolution among themselves, and why a settlement

7

conference would not be a waste of party and judicial resources given it appears likely Plaintiff will

8

oppose the request.2 Any response shall be filed no later than January 26, 2016.3

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

DATED: January 22, 2016

11

______________________________________
_____________________
_
_ ___
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
ates Magistrate Judge
a istra

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

2

Defendants’ counsel is required to meet-and-confer as to the requested relief prior to refiling
motion. See, e.g., Local Rule 7-5(d)(3) (all emergency motions must include a certification that, after
personal consultation and a sincere effort to do so, the movant has been unable to resolve the dispute). The
parties should file a stipulation seeking relief if Plaintiff does not oppose the request.
3

Nothing herein should be construed as altering in any way the pending motion for preliminary
injunction, including the schedule on which it will be briefed and decided.
2