United States District Court, D. Nevada
PERLA A. HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff,
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al., Defendants.
FOLEY, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant Bank of America's
(“BANA”) Motion to Stay Discovery Pending a
Ruling on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF. 45), filed
on January 13, 2017. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to
this motion and the time for opposition has now expired.
filed the instant action on October 17, 2016.
Complaint (ECF No. 3). The Complaint asserts causes
of action for “Trespass” and “Trespass on
the Case.” Id. These causes of action are
based on Plaintiff's assertions that Defendants
wrongfully evicted her and that Defendant Bank of America did
not have authority to foreclose on the subject property.
Defendant BANA filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) on
November 21, 2016. Plaintiff filed a Response (ECF No. 33) on
December 1, 2016. Defendant BANA's Motion to Dismiss
requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint on
the grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
to hear Plaintiff's claims, that collateral estoppel bars
Plaintiff's claims, and that Plaintiff's complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Because Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is potentially
dispositive of the entire case, Defendant argues that
discovery in this matter should be stayed pending the
resolution of its motion. This stay would relieve the parties
of incurring the potentially unnecessary expenses of
discovery should the District Court grant the Motion to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic
or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive
motion is pending. See Skellerup Indus. Ltd. V. City of
L.A., 163 F.R.D. 598, 600-1 (C.D. Cal. 1995).
Ordinarily, a dispositive motion does not warrant a stay of
discovery. See Twin City Fire Insurance v. Employers of
Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989). See also
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175
F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The moving party carries the
heavy burden of making a strong showing of why discovery
should be denied. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294
F .R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013).
have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See
Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th
Cir.1988). When deciding whether to grant a stay of
discovery, the Court is guided by the objectives of
Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 that ensures a “just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of every action.” Kor
Media Group, 294 F.R.D. at 581. It is well known that
the purpose of Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is to enable defendants
to challenge the legal sufficiency of a complaint without
subjecting themselves to discovery. Tradebay, LLC v.
eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). To
establish good cause for a stay, the moving party must show
more than an apparently meritorious Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Turner Broadcasting System, 175 F.R.D. at 556.
Court may grant a motion to stay discovery when “(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 and is convinced that the
plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief.”
Kor Media Group, 294 F.R.D. at 581. Common examples
of when a stay is warranted are cases involving jurisdiction,
venue, or immunity as preliminary issues. Twin City Fire
Ins. Co., 124 F.R.D. at 653. Furthermore, a stay of
discovery might be appropriate where the complaint was
utterly frivolous, or filed merely for settlement value. 4 J.
Moore, Federal Practice § 26.70, at 461.
reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint and the briefs on the
motion to dismiss, the Court finds that a stay of discovery
is appropriate here. Defendant BANA's primary argument in
its motion to dismiss is that this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims. Based on the Court's
“preliminary peak, ” this argument is well taken
and appears to be meritorious. Discovery would therefore
serve no purpose until the District Court has determined
whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
case. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Bank
of America's Motion to Stay Discovery Pending a Ruling on
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF. 45) is granted.
 Defendant Clark County filed a Motion
to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) on November 14, 2016. Defendant
Stonecrest Acquisitions, LLC also filed a Motion to Dismiss
(ECF No. 16) on November 14, 2016. Defendant State of Nevada
filed a Motion ...