Bank of New York Mellon, v. Imagination North Landscape Maintenance Association, et al

Filing 87

ORDER DENYING ECF No. 82 Motion to Stay discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/14/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
14
15

IMAGINATION NORTH LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-00383-MMD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 82)

16
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of dispositive
17
motions. See Docket No. 82; see also Docket No. 83 (motion for summary judgment). The Court has
18
previously denied similar motions filed in other cases. See JPMorgan Chase Bank v. RHKids, LLC,
19
2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 123044 (D. Nev. Aug. 4, 2017) (citing Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Vegas Prop. Servs.,
20
2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66682 (D. Nev. May 2, 2017)). For the reasons discussed therein and below, the
21
Court DENIES the motion to stay discovery.
22
The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle,
23
863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic
24
or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay,
25
Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking a stay carries the heavy burden of making
26
a strong showing why discovery should be denied. See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda
27
Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to
28

1

stay all discovery may be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the

2

potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken

3

a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the plaintiff

4

will be unable to state a claim for relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D.

5

Nev. 2013).1

6

The Court finds that a stay of discovery is not appropriate in this case. Most significantly, the

7

Court has taken a preliminary peek at the motion for summary judgment and is not convinced that it will

8

be granted.2 It bears repeating that the filing of a non-frivolous dispositive motion, standing alone, is

9

simply not enough to warrant staying discovery. See, e.g., Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. Instead, the

10

Court must be “convinced” that the dispositive motion will be granted. See, e.g., id. “That standard is

11

not easily met.” Kor Media, 294 F.R.D. at 583. “[T]here must be no question in the court’s mind that

12

the dispositive motion will prevail, and therefore, discovery is a waste of effort.” Id. (quoting Trazska

13

v. Int’l Game Tech., 2011 WL 1233298, *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 29, 2011)) (emphasis in original). The Court

14

requires this robust showing that the dispositive motion will succeed because applying a lower standard

15

would likely result in unnecessary delay in many cases. Id. (quoting Trazska, 2011 WL 1233298, at *4).

16

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is premised on the assertion that Ninth Circuit authority

17

finding Nevada’s foreclosure statute facially invalid requires judgment in Plaintiff’s favor

18

notwithstanding any notice it may have received. See, e.g., Docket No. 83 at 6. While Plaintiff cites

19

authority favorable to it, its own motion for summary judgment acknowledges contrary authority. See

20

id. at 6 n.3; see also Bayview Loan Serv., LLC v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, 2017 WL 1100955, at

21

*4-5 (D. Nev. Mar. 22, 2017) (rejecting arguments similar to those presented by Plaintiff here based on

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The pending motion is somewhat unusual in that it is the plaintiff seeking a stay of discovery
pending resolution of its dispositive motion. As such, the Court modifies the applicable standards in that
it is taking a preliminary peek to determine whether it is convinced that dispositive relief will be granted to
Plaintiff vis-a-vis its motion for summary judgment.
2

Conducting this preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the assigned
district judge who will decide the motion to dismiss may have a different view of its merits. See Tradebay,
278 F.R.D. at 603. The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of that motion is not intended to
prejudice its outcome. See id.
2

1

Ninth Circuit authority “that receipt of actual notice deprives a claimant of standing to raise a procedural

2

due process claim”). As such, the Court is not convinced that Plaintiff will prevail on its motion for

3

summary judgment, such that conducting discovery will be a waste of effort. See, e.g., Vegas Prop.

4

Servs., 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66682, at *3 (denying stay for same reason).

5

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to stay discovery.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED: August 14, 2017

8
9

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3