Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hologram USA, Inc. v. Cirque Du Soleil My Call, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

November 24, 2014

HOLOGRAM USA, INC., et al., Plaintiff(s),
v.
CIRQUE DU SOLEIL MY CALL, LLC, et al., Defendant(s)

For Musion Das Hologram Limited, Uwe Maass, Hologram USA, Inc., Plaintiffs: Ryan G. Baker, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Baker Marquart LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Scott Matthew Malzahn, LEAD ATTORNEY, Baker Marquart LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Craig A. Newby, McDonald Carano Wilson LLP, Las Vegas, NV.

For Circque Du Soleil My Call, LLC, Defendant, Counter Claimant: Christopher R Miltenberger, Pisanelli Bice, PLLC, Las Vegas, NV.

For John McClain, Executor on behalf of Estate of Michael J. Jackson, MJJ Productions, Inc., John Branca, Executor on behalf of Estate of Michael J. Jackson, Defendants: Gregory P. Korn, Howard L. Weitzman, Jonathan Steinsapir, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP, Santa Monica, CA; Michael N Feder, LEAD ATTORNEY, Gordon Silver, Las Vegas, NV.

For Arena3D Industrial Illusion, LLC, Defendant: James V Fazio, III, LEAD ATTORNEY, San Diego IP Law Group LLP, San Diego, CA; Michael N Feder, LEAD ATTORNEY, Gordon Silver, Las Vegas, NV.

For Hologram USA, Inc., Uwe Maass, Musion Das Hologram Limited, Counter Defendants: Ryan G. Baker, Scott Matthew Malzahn, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Baker Marquart LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Craig A. Newby, McDonald Carano Wilson LLP, Las Vegas, NV.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY (Docket No. 76)

NANCY J. KOPPE, United States Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant Arena3D Industrial Illusion, LLC's (" Arena3D") motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 76. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition and Arena3D filed a reply. Docket Nos. 79, 88. The Court finds the motion properly decided without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED.

Arena3D seeks an order staying discovery pending resolution of, inter alia, its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.[1] While the filing of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction does not automatically result in an order staying discovery, such a motion " strongly favors a stay, or at a minimum, limitations on discovery until the question of jurisdiction is resolved." Kabo Tool Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 53570, *3 (D. Nev. Apr. 15, 2013) (quoting AMC Fabrication, Inc. v. KRD Trucking West, Inc., 2012 WL 4846152, *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2012)). Courts are more inclined to stay discovery pending resolution of such a motion because it presents a " critical preliminary question." Id. In this case, the undersigned has reviewed the briefing on the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and finds Arena3D's arguments to have sufficient weight to warrant staying discovery.[2]

Plaintiffs also argue that a complete stay of discovery is not warranted because jurisdictional discovery should be allowed. See Docket No. 79 at 6-7. In opposing the pending motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs have requested that the district judge grant jurisdictional discovery if he finds that the record is not sufficiently developed. See Docket No. 80 at 11-13. Thus, it is more prudent for the undersigned to defer the question of whether jurisdictional discovery is necessary to the assigned district judge in his determination of the merits of the pending motion to dismiss. See, e.g., AMC Fabrication, 2012 WL 4846152, at *4.[3]

For the reasons discussed above, the motion to stay discovery pending resolution of Arena3D's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is hereby GRANTED. This stay of discovery relates only to discovery propounded on or propounded by Defendant Arena3D. Discovery among the other parties shall continue. See, e.g., White v. American Tobacco Co., 125 F.R.D. 508, 509 (D. Nev. 1989) (denying motion to stay discovery against one defendant where motion to dismiss was filed by another defendant). In the event the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is not granted in full, within seven days of the issuance of the order resolving that motion, Plaintiffs and Arena3D shall file a joint status report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.