United States District Court, D. Nevada
GERALDINE A. TRICE, Plaintiff,
NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
FOLEY, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
0 This matter is before the Court on Defendant JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A.'s (“Chase”) Motion for Stay of
Discovery Proceedings Pending the Motions to Dismiss (ECF No.
40), filed on February 2, 2017. Plaintiff filed an Opposition
(ECF No. 45) on February 15, 2017 and Defendant filed a Reply
(ECF No. 46) on February 22, 2017.
filed the instant action on September 6, 2016.
Complaint (ECF No. 1). The Complaint asserts the
following causes of action: (1) False Representation
Concerning Title and Fraudulent Foreclosure, (2) Quiet Title,
(3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (4)
Injunctive Relief, and (5) Slander of Title. These claims are
based on Plaintiff's attempt to challenge the
non-judicial foreclosure sale on certain real property.
Defendant Chase filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18) on
December 12, 2016 despite the fact that it has not
officially been named as a defendant. Plaintiff filed a Response
(ECF No. 27) on December 22, 2016. Defendant Chase's
motion to dismiss requests that the Court dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff's
claims are barred based on the doctrines of claim and/or
issue preclusion and that Plaintiff's Complaint and
Supplement (ECF No. 12-1) fail to state a claim upon which
relief can 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 as well as the
other Defendants' motions to dismiss. This stay would
relieve the parties of incurring the potentially unnecessary
expenses of discovery should the District Court grant the
motions to dismiss.
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 Defendant Chase's motion to dismiss and
Plaintiffs corresponding response, the Court finds that a
stay of discovery is appropriate here. Defendant argues that
Plaintiffs instant Complaint is her fifth attempt to litigate
the lawfulness of the non-judicial foreclosure sale. Based on
the Court's “preliminary peak, ” this
argument is well taken and appears meritorious. Additionally,
the proposed supplement to Plaintiffs Complaint is a fugitive
document in that leave to file it has not yet been granted by
the Court. Discovery would therefore serve no purpose until
the District Court has determined whether Plaintiffs claims
are barred by the doctrines of issue and/or claim preclusion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A.'s Motion for Stay of Discovery
Proceedings Pending the Motions to Dismiss (ECF No. 40) is
granted. If the motions to dismiss are not granted in full,
the parties shall file a proposed discovery plan within seven
days of the issuance of the order resolving the first motion
to dismiss that is decided.
 Defendants National Default Servicing
Corporation, Michael Bosco and Carmen Navejas filed a Motion
to Dismiss (ECF No. 24) on December 19, 2016. Defendant
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation filed a Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 38) on January 24, 2017.
 Plaintiff's initial Complaint does
not name Chase as a defendant. On October 27, 2016, Plaintiff
filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 12). Attached
thereto was Plaintiff's proposed supplement to her
Complaint. That same day the Clerk of the Court issued
summons to the newly named Defendants despite the fact that
Plaintiff's motion has not yet been ruled upon. Plaintiff
then served Chase through its registered agent and Chase