Reflex Media, Inc. et al v. Successfulmatch.com et al

Filing 45

ORDER Granting 44 Stipulation to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 10/2/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Case 2:18-cv-00259-GMN-GWF Document 44 Filed 10/01/18 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5

Michael J. McCue
Nevada Bar No.: 6055
Meng Zhong
Nevada Bar No.: 12145
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Tel.: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]

6
7

Attorneys for Defendant SuccessfulMatch.com
and Jason Du

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

11

REFLEX MEDIA, INC., a Nevada
corporation; and CLOVER8 INVESTMENTS
PTD.LTD., a Singapore corporation,

Case No.: 2:18-cv-00259-GMN-GWF

12
Plaintiffs,
13
14

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
STAY DISCOVERY PENDING
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS

v.
SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM, a California
corporation; JASON DU, an individual;
DIANNE ELIZABETH MURRY, an
individual; SONG DONGLIN, an individual;
TOM FU, an individual; WANG YU, an
individual; JESSICA ZHANG, an individual;
PHOEBE WI, an individual; LUCY LIU, an
individual; and DOE NO. 1,

15
16
17
18

Defendants.
19
20

Plaintiffs REFLEX MEDIA, INC. and CLOVER8 INVESTMENTS PTD. LTD

21

(“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM and JASON DU (“Defendants”)

22

state the following:

23

1.

The Complaint was filed on February 12, 2018 (ECF No. 1);

24

2.

Defendant SuccessfulMatch.com waived service of the Summons and Complaint

25

on May 10, 2018 (ECF No. 18);
3.

26

Defendant Jason Du waived service of the Summons and Complaint on May 10,

27

2018 (ECF No. 17);

28

///

106184157_1

1

Case 2:18-cv-00259-GMN-GWF Document 44 Filed 10/01/18 Page 2 of 3

1

4.

Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on July 9, 2018 (ECF No. 23);

2

5.

Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on August 6,

3
4
5

2018 (ECF No. 29);
6.

Defendants submitted a reply in support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on

August 13, 2018 (ECF No. 31);

6

7.

The Motion to Dismiss is fully briefed and awaiting decision;

7

8.

The Motion to Dismiss addresses certain threshold questions of law regarding

8

personal jurisdiction of this Court over SuccessfulMatch.com and Jason Du based on the

9

allegations in the Complaint;

10
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

11
12

9.

The briefing for the Motion to Dismiss does not seek discovery to resolve any

factual issues;
10.

The Parties wish to avoid spending their respective limited resources on

13

discovery pending the outcome of a motion addressing a threshold issue of law regarding

14

jurisdiction;

15

11.

In the context of a pending motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction,

16

“courts are more inclined to stay discovery because it presents a critical preliminary question.”

17

Hologram USA, Inc. v. Pulse Evolution Corp., No. 2:14-CV-00772-GMN, 2015 WL 1600768, at

18

*1 (D. Nev. Apr. 8, 2015) (quotations and citations omitted); see also Edwards, 2017 WL

19

1822572, at *1 (“Typical situations in which staying discovery pending a ruling on a dispositive

20

motion are appropriate would be where the dispositive motion raises issues of jurisdiction,

21

venue, or immunity”); Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556

22

(D. Nev. 1997) (stating that common situations in which a court may determine that staying

23

discovery is appropriate occur when dispositive motions raise issues of jurisdiction, venue, or

24

immunity); Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Letyagin, 2012 WL 3135671, at *5 (D. Nev. Aug. 1,

25

2012) (“A defendant should not be required to engage in expensive and burdensome discovery in

26

a court that has no jurisdiction over him.”); Grand Canyon Skywalk Dev. LLC v. Steele, No.

27

2:13-CV-00596-JAD, 2014 WL 60216, at *4 (D. Nev. Jan. 7, 2014) (Foley, J.) (“Motions to

28

dismiss based on lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction, or immunity from suit raise

106184157_1

2

Case 2:18-cv-00259-GMN-GWF Document 44 Filed 10/01/18 Page 3 of 3

1

issues that call for a different standard as to whether discovery should be stayed. A defendant

2

should not be required to participate in burdensome and costly discovery in a forum that has no

3

jurisdiction over him…”); AMC Fabrication, Inc. v. KRD Trucking West, Inc., 2012 WL

4

4846152, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2012) (a motion challenging personal jurisdiction strongly

5

favors a stay);

6

12.

Additionally, as noted in the submitted proposed scheduling plan, several other

7

foreign defendants are being served with process in China (ECF No. 41) and a stay would allow

8

more time to complete service of those defendants and have all the parties joined together to

9

conduct discovery at the same time, rather than piecemeal;

10

13.

Based on the foregoing reasons, the Parties believe a temporary stay of discovery

3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

11

until the Court resolves the pending Motion to Dismiss is warranted to resolve a preliminary

12

issue of jurisdiction and as it is more just to accomplish the inexpensive determination of the

13

case. See Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011) (setting forth

14

standard to stay discovery pending dispositive motion);

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

14.

Accordingly, the Parties request that the Court stay discovery pending ruling on

the Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS SO AGREED AND STIPULATED:
LEWIS ROCA
ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP

SMITH WASHBURN, LLP

By: /s/ Meng Zhong
Michael J. McCue
Meng Zhong
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]

By: /s/ Jacob L. Fonnesbeck
Jacob L. Fonnesbeck
3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Suite 500
Las Vegas, NV 89169
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Reflex Media, Inc. and
Clover8 Investments Ptd. Ltd

Attorneys for Defendant SuffessfulMatch.com
and Jason Du

26

IT IS SO ORDERED:

27

__________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DATED: ___________________________
10/02/2018

28

106184157_1

3