Thornton v. Portola Del Sol Operator, LLC et al

Filing 99

ORDER Granting 98 Stipulation to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 4/11/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RJDG)

6

Rory T. Kay (NSBN 12416)
John A. Fortin (NSBN 15221)
Karyna M. Armstrong (NSBN 16044)
McDONALD CARANO LLP
2300 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 1200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

7

Attorneys for Defendant TMIF II Portola, LLC

1
2
3
4
5

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ex rel. PEGGY THORNTON, Relator,

12

and

13

PEGGY THORNTON,
Plaintiffs,

14
15

vs.

16

PORTOLA DEL SOL OPERATOR, LLC,
14 a foreign limited-liability company;
TMIF II PORTOLA, LLC, a foreign limited15 liability company; APARTMENT
MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, LLC,
16 a foreign limited liability company, and
RENE RICHARDSON, as AGENT of
17 PORTOLA DEL SOL OPERATOR, LLC.,

17
18
19
20

Case No.: 2:21-cv-01123-APG-BNW
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY
DISCOVERY PENDING RULING ON
PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
(SECOND REQUEST)

Defendants.

21
22
23

Defendants TMIF II Portola, LLC (“TMIF”) and Apartment Management Consultants, LLC

24

(“AMC”), Rene Richardson (“Richardson”), and Plaintiff Peggy Thornton (“Thornton”)

25

(collectively, “Parties”), by and through their attorneys, hereby agree, stipulate, and request that the

26

Court stay all discovery in this action, pending the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Motions to

27

Dismiss. This is the Parties’ second request to stay discovery.

28

...

1

To recap, TMIF filed its Motion to Dismiss requesting Thornton’s Complaint be dismissed

2

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See ECF Nos. 38 and 56. The Parties’

3

deadline to file the proposed Discovery Plan was July 23, 2023. See ECF No. 57. The Parties,

4

therefore, stipulated to stay discovery pending the outcome of TMIF’s Motion to Dismiss. See ECF

5

No. 63. The Court granted the Parties’ stipulation and stayed discovery. ECF No. 64. Therein,

6

Court ordered that “the remaining Parties” shall “file a proposed Discovery Plan to” the Court “14

7

days after the Court rules on TMIF’s Motion to Dismiss.” Id. at 3:2-3. The Court granted TMIF’s

8

Motion to Dismiss and Thornton “may file an amended complaint by December 8, 2023, if facts

9

exist to do so.” ECF No. 73 at 7:8-9. Thornton timely filed her First Amended Complaint. See

10

ECF No. 75. TMIF then filed its motion to dismiss, ECF No. 81, Thornton opposed, ECF No. 88,

11

and TMIF filed its reply in support of its motion, ECF No. 94. AMC and Richardson similarly filed

12

their motion to dismiss, ECF No. 85, Thornton opposed, ECF No. 93, and AMC and Richardson

13

filed their reply in support of its motion, ECF No. 95. On April 2, 2024, the Court issued a Minute

14

Order, ordering the Parties to file a new Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order in 14 days or by

15

April 16, 2024.

16

The Parties have conferred regarding potential discovery and agree that TMIF’s, AMC’s,

17

and Richardson’s Motions to Dismiss can be decided without further discovery and good cause

18

exists to stay discovery until this Court issues a ruling on TMIF’s, AMC’s, and Richardson’s

19

pending Motions to Dismiss. Good cause exists to stay discovery because: (1) a stay will prevent

20

all Parties –including Thornton who is represented by Nevada Legal Services– from incurring

21

potentially unnecessary discovery expenses given TMIF, AMC, and Richardson may potentially be

22

dismissed from this case; and (2) a stay will allow and prevent an undue burden on the Parties by

23

participating in potentially unnecessary discovery with TMIF, AMC, and Richardson.

24

The remaining Parties in the case will again confer and submit a proposed Discovery Plan,

25

as necessary, within 14 days of the Court’s ruling on TMIF’s, AMC’s, and Richardson’s Motions

26

to Dismiss.

27

...

28

...
Page 2 of 3

1

Accordingly, the Parties respectfully request the Court enter an order (1) extending the

2

deadline for the remaining Parties to file a proposed Discovery Plan to 14 days after the Court rules

3

on TMIF’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 81 and 94) along with AMC and Richardson’s Motion to

4

Dismiss (ECF Nos. 85 and 95), and (2) staying discovery pending the ruling on TMIF’s, AMC’s,

5

and Richardson’s Motions to Dismiss. The stipulation is made in good faith and not for purposes

6

of delay.

7

DATED this 10th day of April, 2024.

8

NEVADA LEGAL SERVICES, INC.

McDONALD CARANO LLP

9

By: /s/ Elizabeth S. Carmona
Peter C. Wetherall (NSBN 4414)
Elizabeth S. Carmona (NSBN 14687)
Kristopher Pre (NSBN 14106)
530 South 6th Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

By: /s/ John A. Fortin
Rory T. Kay (NSBN 12416)
John A. Fortin (NSBN 15221)
Karyna M. Armstrong (NSBN 16044)
2300 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 1200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89102

10
11
12
13

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Attorneys for Defendant TMIF II Portola, LLC

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
By: /s/ Kelly H. Dove
Kelly H. Dove (NSBN 10569)
Gil Kahn (NSBN 14220)
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Attorneys for Defendant Apartment
Management Consultants, LLC & Rene
Richardson

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DATED: 4/11/2024

27
28
Page 3 of 3