Opinion
2:23-cv-00047-RFB-VCF
02-14-2023
ERIK E. MOORE, an Individual, Plaintiff, v. ARTIC CAT, INC., a Minnesota Corporation doing business in Nevada; DOES I through X; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIESI through XX inclusive, Defendants.
Daniela LaBounty Carol P. Michel, Esq. Daniela LaBounty, Esq. WEINBERG,WHEELER, HUDGINS, GUNN & DIAL, LLC Attorneys for Defendant Arctic Cat Inc. erroneously named as Artic Cat, Inc. Whitney J. Barrett (with permission) Peter S. Christiansen, Esq. R. Todd Terry, Esq. Kendelee L. Works, Esq. Whitney J. Barrett, Esq. Keely P. Chippoletti, Esq. CHRISTIANSEN TRIAL LAWYERS Attorneys for Plaintiff
(Removed from the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A-22-859224-C, Dept. 16)
Daniela LaBounty Carol P. Michel, Esq. Daniela LaBounty, Esq. WEINBERG,WHEELER, HUDGINS, GUNN & DIAL, LLC Attorneys for Defendant Arctic Cat Inc. erroneously named as Artic Cat, Inc.
Whitney J. Barrett (with permission) Peter S. Christiansen, Esq. R. Todd Terry, Esq. Kendelee L. Works, Esq. Whitney J. Barrett, Esq. Keely P. Chippoletti, Esq. CHRISTIANSEN TRIAL LAWYERS Attorneys for Plaintiff.
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY (FIRST REQUEST)
Cam Ferenbach United States Magistrate Judge
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1, Plaintiff ERIK E. MOORE (“Plaintiff') by and through his attorneys of record, CHRISTIANSEN TRIAL LAWYERS, and Defendant Arctic Cat Inc., erroneously named as Artic Cat, Inc., (“Defendant”), by and through its attorneys of record WEINBERG, WHEELER, HUDGINS, GUNN & DIAL, LLC, hereby request that the Court stay discovery and the filing of the Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by February 22, 2023, pending the Court's ruling on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5). The parties stipulate and agree as follows:
1. On September 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Complaint alleging two causes of action for (1) Strict Liability and (2) Intentional Misrepresentation against Defendant. See ECF No. 1, Exhibit A. Defendant was served with the Summons and Complaint on December 19, 2022. Id.
2. On January 9, 2023, Defendant removed the matter to Federal Court. Id.
3. On January 13, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(2) and FRCP 12(b)(6). ECF No. 5. Defendant's Motion seeks dismissal arguing that Plaintiff's claim for strict liability is time barred, Plaintiff's claim for intentional misrepresentation does not meet the pleading standard required by FRCP 9(b), and that this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Id. If granted in its entirety, the Motion would dispose of Plaintiff's case in its entirety.
4. Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant's Motion on January 31, 2023. ECF No.
7. Defendant filed its Reply thereto on February 7, 2023. ECF No. 8.
5. Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y FSB v. El, 2019 WL 6310718, at *1 (D. Nev. Nov. 25, 2019) (citing Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). “In deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, the Court is guided by the objectives of Rule 1 to ensure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Id. Preliminary issues such as jurisdiction, venue, or immunity are common situations that may justify a stay. Id. (citing Twin City Fire Ins. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989); see also Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto Indus. Col., 2013 WL 5947138, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 13, 2013) (granting stay based on alleged lack of personal jurisdiction); Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 2013) (granting stay based in part on alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction). This Court applies a three-part test to determine whether a stay is appropriate pending resolution of a dispositive motion: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion to evaluate the likelihood of dismissal. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y FSB, 2019 WL 6310718, at *1 (citing Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013)).
6. Here, the parties stipulate and agree that Defendant's Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, is potentially dispositive and may be decided without additional discovery. Additionally, Defendant's Motion addresses this court's jurisdiction over Defendant, which is a scenario where a stay may warranted. See Twin City Fire Ins. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989).
7. Based on the foregoing, the parties stipulate and agree that discovery shall be stayed pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss, that the Rule 26(f) conference shall be held within ten (10) days of this Court's ruling on these motions, and that the parties shall submit their discovery plan pursuant to Rule 26 and LR 16-1within fourteen (14) days of the Rule 26(f) conference.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that an in-person status hearing is scheduled for 10:00 AM, September 7, 2023. If the motion to dismiss is still pending, the parties may stipulate to continue the status hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.