Ditech Financial LLC et al v. Antelope Homeowners' Association et al

Filing 55

ORDER that the Court declines to impose monetary sanctions at this time. The 48 Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED but CAUTIONS Defendant Leodegario D. Salvador that it is not permitted to avoid discovery moving forward. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/30/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC, et al., 11 Plaintiff(s), 12 vs. 13 ANTELOPE HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, et al., 14 Defendant(s). 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:17-cv-02029-RFB-NJK ORDER (Docket No. 48) 16 Pending before the Court is an order for Defendant Leodegario D. Salvador d/b/a GDS Financial 17 to show cause arising out of its non-participation in the preparation and filing of the amended discovery 18 plan. Docket No. 48. Defendant has now filed a response, indicating that it is not required to participate 19 in discovery since it is challenging the sufficiency of service and the Court does not have jurisdiction 20 over it as a result. Docket No. 53. More specifically, Defendant contends that it “will have to wait for 21 an order from this honorable court that it is ok for [it] to participate in the ‘discovery stage.’” id. at 3. 22 Defendant is wrong. “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket 23 stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 24 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013) (quoting Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. 25 Nev. 2011)). That remains true even where a defendant challenges service of process or personal 26 jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., Ltd., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 156928, at *5 27 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013) (citing AMC Fabrication, Inc. v. KRD Trucking West, Inc., 2012 WL 4846152 28 (D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2012) and Holiday Sys., Int’l of Nev. v. Vivarelli, Schwarz, & Assocs., 2012 WL 1 3860824 (D. Nev. Sept. 5, 2012)). Defendant has not shown and the Court has not found that it is 2 permitted to avoid its discovery obligations. By default and without further Court order, Defendant was 3 required to participate in the formulation and filing of the discovery plan, and is not exempted from 4 complying with its discovery obligations moving forward. 5 Nonetheless, the Court declines to impose monetary sanctions at this time. The Court hereby 6 DISCHARGES the order to show cause, but CAUTIONS Defendant Leodegario D. Salvador d/b/a 7 GDS Financial that it is not permitted to avoid discovery moving forward. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 DATED: October 30, 2017 10 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?