Calkins v. Credit One Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 35

ORDER that 28 Motion to Stay Action is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that 27 Motion to Stay Discovery is DENIED as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/10/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 MICHAEL CALKINS, 12 Plaintiff(s), 13 vs. 14 CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A., et al., 15 Defendant(s). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:16-cv-2602-APG-NJK ORDER (Docket Nos. 27, 28) 16 17 Pending before the Court are Defendant Credit One Bank, N.A.’s motion for stay of 18 discovery and motion for stay of action. Docket Nos. 27, 28. The Court has considered the 19 motions, as well as Plaintiff’s responses and Defendant’s replies. Docket Nos. 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 20 34. The Court finds this motion properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-1. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff initiated this action on November 9, 2016, alleging violations of the Fair Credit 23 Reporting Act and Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices statute. Docket No. 1. On January 6, 2017, 24 Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration. Docket No. 20. Defendant submits that, as its 25 customer, “Plaintiff gave his express consent to arbitrate any and all disputes with Credit One,” and 26 that therefore “Credit One is entitled to compel arbitration.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant 27 is not entitled to compel arbitration. See, e.g., Docket No. 22. Defendant now asks the Court to stay 28 this case or, to stay discovery, pending resolution of its motion to compel arbitration. Docket Nos. 1 27, 28. 2 II. 3 DISCUSSION A. Motion to Stay Action 4 Courts have inherent power to stay the cases before them as a matter of controlling their own 5 dockets and calendars. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936).1 This power to stay 6 is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes of action 7 on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Id. at 254. 8 The movant bears the burden of showing that a stay is warranted. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 9 681, 708 (1997). 10 11 12 The Ninth Circuit has outlined various factors a court should consider in exercising its discretion: 15 Where it is proposed that a pending proceeding be stayed, the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed. Among those competing interests are the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. 16 Lockyer v. Mirant, 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 17 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). 13 14 18 Defendant submits that because this case is neither fact- nor witness-intensive, no harm will 19 result from a stay. Docket No. 28 at 5. Defendant submits that, absent a stay, it will suffer harm 20 because it “will be burdened by the risk of engaging in motion practice and discovery proceedings 21 that may be rendered useless if this Court grants [its] motion to compel arbitration.” Id. at 6. 22 Defendant also contends that granting a stay will conserve the Court’s resources, and will have no 23 1 27 A magistrate judge is authorized to determine motions to stay proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) as long as the resulting order does not effectively deny the ultimate relief sought in the case. S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1260 (9th Cir. 2013); see also PowerShare, Inc. v. Syntel, Inc., 597 F.3d 10, 13-14 (1st Cir. 2010). Since the decision issued herein does not result in the denial of the ultimate relief sought in this case, the undersigned has the authority to determine the pending motion to stay. 28 2 24 25 26 1 negative impact on the public or any other persons outside this litigation. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff 2 responds that, inter alia, Defendant’s motion does not cite the proper authority to support its request 3 to stay the action. Docket No. 32 at 9. Defendant replies that, inter alia, the relevant authority 4 supports imposition of a stay. See Docket No. 33 at 3-7. 5 The Court finds that a stay of the instant action is warranted. First, any potential damage that 6 will result from a stay is minimal. The only risk involved is a slight delay in the proceedings in the 7 event the Court does not grant Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Second, if Defendant is 8 forced to move forward while the motion to compel arbitration is under consideration, it will have 9 to engage in expensive discovery and, potentially, motion practice, that will be rendered useless if 10 the Court grants its motion to compel arbitration. Finally, granting a stay will streamline and 11 simplify the process by allowing the Court to first resolve the threshold issue of whether Defendant 12 may compel arbitration. 13 B. Motion to Stay Discovery 14 Defendant has also filed a motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 27. As the Court has 15 granted Defendant’s motion, Defendant’s motion to stay discovery is now moot. 16 III. CONCLUSION 17 Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s motion for stay of action. Docket No. 18 28. The Court further DENIES Defendant’s motion to stay discovery, Docket No. 27, as moot. The 19 parties shall file a request to lift the stay within 14 days of the resolution of Defendant’s motion to 20 compel arbitration, in the event it is not granted in full. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 DATED: March 10, 2017 23 24 25 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 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?