Banuett v. Fitness Alliance, LLC

Filing 14

ORDER Granting 12 Stipulation to Stay Discovery. If Defendant's 10 Motion to Enforce Severance Settlement and Dismiss Case with prejudice is Denied, the parties must meet and confer and file a proposed stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order within 21 days from the date of the order denying the motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 1/11/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Case 2:16-cv-02732-APG-CWH Document 12 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

WENDY M. KRINCEK, ESQ., Bar # 06417
Z. KATHRYN BRANSON, ESQ., Bar #11540
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937
Telephone:
702.862.8800
Fax No.:
702.862.8811
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
FITNESS ALLIANCE, LLC

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

VICTOR BANUETT, an individual,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

FITNESS ALLIANCE, LLC, a Nevada
Limited-Liability Company (dba Gold’s
Gym); DOE Individuals 1-10 and ROE
CORPORATIONS 1-10, inclusive,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Case No.: 2:16-cv-02732-APG-CWH
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
TO STAY DISCOVERY
[FIRST REQUEST]

Defendants.
Plaintiff VICTOR BANUETT (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant FITNESS ALLIANCE, LLC
(“Defendant”), by and through their respective counsel, do hereby stipulate and agree to stay
discovery until the Court has ruled on Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Severance Agreement And
Dismiss Case With Prejudice (“Defendant’s Motion to Enforce”) (ECF No. 10).

22

Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery including the decision to allow or

23

deny discovery. See e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). In evaluating

24

the propriety of an order staying or limiting discovery while a dispositive motion is pending, the

25

court considers the goal of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, which provides that the Rules should

26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937
702.862.8800

“be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy,
and inexpensive determination of every action.” With Rule 1 as its prime directive, the court must

Case 2:16-cv-02732-APG-CWH Document 12 Filed 01/10/17 Page 2 of 4

1

decide whether it is more just to speed the parties along in discovery while a dispositive motion is

2

pending or to delay discovery to accomplish the inexpensive determination of the case. See Turner

3
4
5
6

Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997); see also Twin
City Fire Ins. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989).
Further, in assessing a request to stay discovery, the court takes a “preliminary peek” at the

7

merits of the dispositive motion. Tradebay, LLC, v. Ebay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011).

8

This “preliminary peek” does not prejudge the outcome of the motion; it merely evaluates whether

9

an order staying discovery is warranted. Id. Common examples of situations in which good cause

10
11

has been found to stay discovery are when jurisdiction, venue, or immunity are preliminary issues.
Id. Ultimately, the party seeking the stay “carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing why

12
13
14

discovery should be denied.” Id. (citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th
Cir.1975)).

15

Defendant’s Motion to Enforce warrants a stay of discovery. First, the Motion is potentially

16

dispositive of the entire case as it seeks enforcement of the parties’ Confidential Severance

17

Agreement and General Release (“Severance Agreement”), wherein Plaintiff agreed to a release of

18
19
20
21

all claims relating to or arising from his employment with Defendant in exchange for a severance
payment. (ECF No. 10, Exhibit B.) Each of the claims alleged in his Complaint specifically arise
out of and relate to his employment with Defendant. This Court has inherent ability to summarily

22

enforce the Severance Agreement and dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice. Dacanay v.

23

Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 1978). Accordingly, the parties agree that Defendant’s

24

Motion to Enforce is the type warranting a stay of discovery.

25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937
702.862.8800

Second, neither party will suffer hardship or inequity as a result of stay because further
discovery is unjustified at this point. Defendant has moved to enforce the Severance Agreement,
which, if granted, will result in dismissal with prejudice of the entire case. Also, the parties agree
2.

Case 2:16-cv-02732-APG-CWH Document 12 Filed 01/10/17 Page 3 of 4

1

that discovery is not necessary prior to the Court’s determination as to whether or not the Severance

2

Agreement should be enforced and Plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice. Requiring the parties

3
4
5

to conduct discovery on claims that Plaintiff previously agreed not to bring before this Court would
result in an unnecessary expenditure of resources and is particularly prejudicial to Defendant.
Third, similar to the situation in Little, this is a case where a temporary stay of discovery will

6
7

further the goals of judicial economy, control of the Court’s docket, and an inexpensive

8

determination of the case. 863 F.2d at 685. Ordering the parties to proceed with discovery could

9

potentially clog the Court’s docket with discovery disputes on claims that may be dismissed, with

10

prejudice.

11

Accordingly, the parties have made the required showing to support their joint request to stay

12
13
14

discovery. For the reasons articulated above, the Court should stay discovery until an Order has
///

15

///

16

///

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937
702.862.8800

3.

Case 2:16-cv-02732-APG-CWH Document 12 Filed 01/10/17 Page 4 of 4

1

been issued on Defendant’s Motion to Enforce (ECF No. 10). If Plaintiff’s claims survive, then the

2

parties will conduct a Rule 26(f) conference and submit a Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order at

3
4
5
6

such future date to be ordered by the Court.
Dated: January 9, 2017

Dated: January 10, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Randal R. Leonard, Esq.
RANDAL R. LEONARD, ESQ.

/s/ Z. Kathryn Branson, Esq.
WENDY MEDURA KRINCEK, ESQ.
Z. KATHRYN BRANSON, ESQ.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Attorney for Plaintiff
VICTOR BANUETT

Attorneys for Defendant
FITNESS ALLIANCE, LLC
IT IS SO ORDERED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendant's Motion to
Enforce Severance Agreement and Dismiss Case with Prejudice (ECF No. 10) is
ORDER
denied, the parties must meet and confer and file a proposed stipulated discovery plan
IT IS the order denying the motion.
and scheduling order within 21 days from the date ofSO ORDERED.
_____________________________________
HONORABLE CARL W. HOFFMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
January 11, 2017
Dated:_____________________________

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937
702.862.8800

4.