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)
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?