Hillery et al v. Sun City Anthem Community Association Inc

Filing 18

ORDER granting ECF No. 17 Stipulation to Stay Discovery Pending Final Resolution of Defendant's Motions to Strike/Dismiss ECF Nos. 7 , 9 , and 10 . Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. on 2/22/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5

LIPSON NEILSON, P.C.
KALEB D. ANDERSON, ESQ. (BAR NO. 7582)
DAVID T. OCHOA, ESQ. (BAR NO. 10414)
9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120
Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
[phone] - Telephone
[phone] - Facsimile
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Sun City Anthem Community Association

6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11

THOMAS HILLERY, an individual, and as
Guardian Ad Litem for MARY JANE
HILLERY, an adult,

Lipson Neilson, P.C.

9900 Covington Cross Dr. Suite 120
Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
[phone] FAX: [phone]

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY
DISCOVERY PENDING FINAL
RESOLUTION OF DEFENDANT’S
MOTIONS TO STRIKE/DISMISS (ECF
NO. 7, 9, 10)

Plaintiffs,

12

CASE NO.: 2:17-cv-02639-MMD-GWF

13

vs.

14

SUN CITY ANTHEM COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, INC.; DOE INDIVIDUALS
1 through 100; ROE BUSINESS
ENTITIES 1 through 25, inclusive

15
16
17

Defendants.

18
19
20
21

COME NOW Plaintiffs and Defendant, through their counsel of record, and stipulate
as follows:
1.

On October 12, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their complaint in the instant action. ECF

22

No. 3. The Complaint has causes of action under Federal Fair Housing Act 42. U.S.C. §§

23

3601 et seq.; Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et Seq.; Nevada Revised

24

Statutes Chapter 651; Breach of Contract; and Unjust Enrichment.

25
26

2.

On November 8, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Strike, a Motion to

Dismiss Claims Two and Four, and a Motion to Dismiss Claims Eight and Nine. ECF No. 7,

27
28
Page 1 of 3

1

9, 10. One Motion to Dismiss is for vagueness and alternatively seeks a more definite

2

statement. The Other Motion to Dismiss is based on subject matter jurisdiction.

3

3.

Briefing on Defendant’s Motions to Strike/Dismiss is Complete.

4

4.

Parties have filed a Stipulated Discovery Plan and submitted initial

5
6
7
8
9
10

disclosures. Current Discovery Cut-Off Date is May 7, 2018.
5.

The Parties seek a stay of Discovery until after the Court rules on

Defendant’s Motions to Strike/Dismiss.
6.

Federal district courts have “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little

City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 61, 685 (9th Cir. 1988).
7.

To determine if a continued stay is appropriate, the Court considers (1)

Lipson Neilson, P.C.

damage from the stay; (2) hardship or inequity that befalls one party more than the other;

12
9900 Covington Cross Dr. Suite 120
Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
[phone] FAX: [phone]

11

and (3) the orderly course of justice. See Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators

13

Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth factors). Here, the factors

14

support a stay of litigation.

15

8.

Damage from Stay: Any damage from a temporary stay in this case will be

16

minimal if balanced against the potential fees, costs, and time which would surely ensue in

17

this matter if litigation were allowed to continue and claims were subsequently dismissed.

18

Moreover, the Court will be relieved of expending further time and effort, which could

19

include discovery motions related to claims that may be dismissed, until the Motions to

20

Dismiss are resolved. Thus, a stay will benefit all parties involved herein.

21

9.

Hardship or Inequity: There will be no significant hardship or inequity that

22

befalls one party more than the other. This relatively equal balance of equities results from

23

the need for all parties to have finality and direct discovery efforts appropriately.

24

parties agree that any hardship or inequity falling on any of them is outweighed by the

25

benefits of a stay.

26

10.

27

The

Orderly Course of Justice: At the center of this case is a determination of

whether the Defendant, had a duty to accommodate a disability in specific ways. While the

28
Page 2 of 3

1

parties may disagree on the merits of the arguments in the Motion, they agree that the facts

2

and law are set out in such a way that this Court can make a preliminary judgment as to

3

their validity. The parties believe a stay is warranted because they will be able to avoid the

4

cost and expense of written discovery and depositions that may be irrelevant depending on

5

the outcome of the Motions to Strike/Dismiss.

6

expending further time and effort considering any discovery-related motions or protective

7

orders.

8
9
10

11.

Further, the Court will be relieved of

The parties agree and request that all discovery deadlines in this case be

stayed pending final resolution of the Motions to Strike/Dismiss.
12.

Any party may file a written motion to lift stay at any time if either party

Lipson Neilson, P.C.

determines it appropriate.

12
9900 Covington Cross Dr. Suite 120
Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
[phone] FAX: [phone]

11

DATED this 21st day of February, 2018

DATED this 21st day of February, 2018

13

LIPSON NEILSON, P.C.

N.R. DONATH & ASSOCIATES PLLC

14

/s/ David T. Ochoa
By:__________________________
KALEB D. ANDERSON, ESQ.
(NV Bar No. 7582)
DAVID T. OCHOA, ESQ.
(NV Bar No. 10414)
9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120
Las Vegas, NV 89144
Attorneys for Sun City Anthem
Community Association

/s/ Nicolas R. Donath
By:____________________________
NICOLAS R. DONATH, ESQ.
(NV Bar No. 13106)
971 Coronado Center Dr., Suite 200
Henderson, NV 89052
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER

21
22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED
_________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2/22/2018
DATED:__________________________

26
27
28
Page 3 of 3