United States District Court, D. Nevada
FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge.
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Stay
Discovery (ECF No. 30), filed on March 9, 2017. To date,
Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion and the
time for opposition has now expired.
filed an Amended Complaint on January 6, 2017. Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 11). The Amended Complaint asserts
causes of action for equal protection and due process,
violation of financial right to privacy- 12 U.S.C. 3405 and
NRS 239A, disparate treatment under Title VII, RICO
violations-18 U.S.C. 1962(b) and (c), intentional
interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional
interference with contractual relations, negligence,
injunctive relief, and failure to adequately train,
supervise, discipline and/or screen. See Id.
Defendants David Clark and the State Bar of Nevada filed a
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20) on January 30, 2017. Plaintiff
filed a Response (ECF No. 28) on February 27, 2017 and
Defendants filed a Reply (ECF No. 29) on March 6, 2017.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on the grounds that the
Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims under
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, that Plaintiff's
claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and by absolute
immunity under Nevada Supreme Court Rule 106, and that this
Court should abstain from considering Plaintiff's case
under the Younger doctrine. Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 20), pgs. 7-14. In addition,
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss argues that notwithstanding
the jurisdictional issues raised, Plaintiff's claims are
also substantially defective. Id. at pgs. 14-21.
Because Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is potentially
dispositive of the entire case, Defendants argue 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 Plaintiffs Complaint and the briefs on the motion to
dismiss, the Court finds that a stay of discovery is
appropriate here. Defendants' primary arguments in their
Motion to Dismiss is that this Court lacks jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs claims based on the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, the Eleventh Amendment and Nevada Supreme Court
Rule 106. Based on the Court's “preliminary peek,
” these arguments are well taken and appear to be
meritorious. Discovery would therefore serve no purpose until
the District Court has determined whether the Court has
jurisdiction over this case. Moreover, Plaintiff failed to
oppose Defendants' motion and as a result consents to the
granting of the motion pursuant to Local Rule 47-3.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion
to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 30) is granted.
 Pursuant to Local Rule 47-3,
“[t]he failure of an opposing party to include points
and authorities in response to any motion constitutes a