Hernandez v. State of Nevada et al
Filing
51
ORDER granting 45 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 2/2/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
PERLA A. HERNANDEZ,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
Case No. 2:16-cv-02414-KJD-GWF
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Bank of America’s (“BANA”) Motion to Stay
14
Discovery Pending a Ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF. 45), filed on January 13, 2017.
15
Plaintiff did not file an opposition to this motion and the time for opposition has now expired.
16
BACKGROUND
17
Plaintiff filed the instant action on October 17, 2016. Complaint (ECF No. 3). The
18
Complaint asserts causes of action for “Trespass” and “Trespass on the Case.” Id. These causes of
19
action are based on Plaintiff’s assertions that Defendants wrongfully evicted her and that Defendant
20
Bank of America did not have authority to foreclose on the subject property. Defendant BANA filed
21
a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) on November 21, 2016.1 Plaintiff filed a Response (ECF No. 33)
22
on December 1, 2016. Defendant BANA’s Motion to Dismiss requests that the Court dismiss
23
Plaintiff’s Complaint on the grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s
24
claims, that collateral estoppel bars Plaintiff’s claims, and that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a
25
claim upon which relief may be granted. Because Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is potentially
26
dispositive of the entire case, Defendant argues that discovery in this matter should be stayed pending
27
28
1
Defendant Clark County filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) on November 14, 2016. Defendant Stonecrest
Acquisitions, LLC also filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) on November 14, 2016. Defendant State of Nevada filed a
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28) on December 1, 2016.
1
the resolution of its motion. This stay would relieve the parties of incurring the potentially
2
unnecessary expenses of discovery should the District Court grant the Motion to Dismiss.
3
DISCUSSION
4
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of
5
discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending. See Skellerup Indus. Ltd. V. City of L.A.,
6
163 F.R.D. 598, 600-1 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Ordinarily, a dispositive motion does not warrant a stay of
7
discovery. See Twin City Fire Insurance v. Employers of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev.
8
1989). See also Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev.
9
1997). The moving party carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing of why discovery
10
11
should be denied. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F .R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013).
Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See Little v. City of Seattle, 863
12
F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.1988). When deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, the Court is
13
guided by the objectives of Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 that ensures a “just, speedy, and inexpensive
14
determination of every action.” Kor Media Group, 294 F.R.D. at 581. It is well known that the
15
purpose of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is to enable defendants to challenge the legal sufficiency of a
16
complaint without subjecting themselves to discovery. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597,
17
601 (D. Nev. 2011). To establish good cause for a stay, the moving party must show more than an
18
apparently meritorious Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Turner Broadcasting System, 175 F.R.D. at 556.
19
The Court may grant a motion to stay discovery when “(1) the pending motion is potentially
20
dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and
21
(3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is
22
convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief.” Kor Media Group, 294 F.R.D.
23
at 581. Common examples of when a stay is warranted are cases involving jurisdiction, venue, or
24
immunity as preliminary issues. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 124 F.R.D. at 653. Furthermore, a stay of
25
discovery might be appropriate where the complaint was utterly frivolous, or filed merely for
26
settlement value. 4 J. Moore, Federal Practice § 26.70[2], at 461.
27
28
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and the briefs on the motion to dismiss, the Court
finds that a stay of discovery is appropriate here. Defendant BANA’s primary argument in its motion
2
1
to dismiss is that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. Based on the
2
Court’s “preliminary peak,” this argument is well taken and appears to be meritorious. Discovery
3
would therefore serve no purpose until the District Court has determined whether the Court has
4
subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly,
5
6
7
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Bank of America’s Motion to Stay Discovery
Pending a Ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF. 45) is granted.
DATED this 2nd day of February, 2017.
8
9
10
______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?