Adamian v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada

D. Nevada

Adamian v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided November 16, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-01586·Unknown

Opinion

* * *

LORA ADAMIAN, Case No. 2:21-cv-01586-GMN-EJY

Plaintiff, ORDER v.

CANADA, Defendant. Before the Court is the Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. ECF No. 10. No response to this Motion was filed by Plaintiff. Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings argues that Plaintiff’s lawsuit is time barred and, if not time barred, the dispute is governed by ERISA. As is true with the instant Motion, Plaintiff filed no response to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Court has inherent power to manage proceedings by ordering a stay of discovery. Bacon v. Reyes, Case No. 2:12-cv-01222-JCM, 2013 WL 5522263, at *5 (D. Nev. Oct. 3, 2013). Further, a motion to stay discovery, while far from automatic, is appropriate when there is no need for further exploration of facts, and issues before the Court in a motion are questions of law the outcomes of which are potentially case dispositive. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 602 (D. Nev. 2011). A “preliminary peek” of Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 6) shows that it is likely dispositive of all issues in this case. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. All other factors also support a stay. ECF No. 10 at 2. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Hearing (ECF No. 11) is Dated this 16th day of November, 2021.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

* * *

LORA ADAMIAN, Case No. 2:21-cv-01586-GMN-EJY

Plaintiff, ORDER v.

CANADA, Defendant. Before the Court is the Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. ECF No. 10. No response to this Motion was filed by Plaintiff. Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings argues that Plaintiff’s lawsuit is time barred and, if not time barred, the dispute is governed by ERISA. As is true with the instant Motion, Plaintiff filed no response to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Court has inherent power to manage proceedings by ordering a stay of discovery. Bacon v. Reyes, Case No. 2:12-cv-01222-JCM, 2013 WL 5522263, at *5 (D. Nev. Oct. 3, 2013). Further, a motion to stay discovery, while far from automatic, is appropriate when there is no need for further exploration of facts, and issues before the Court in a motion are questions of law the outcomes of which are potentially case dispositive. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 602 (D. Nev. 2011). A “preliminary peek” of Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 6) shows that it is likely dispositive of all issues in this case. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. All other factors also support a stay. ECF No. 10 at 2. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Hearing (ECF No. 11) is Dated this 16th day of November, 2021.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Adamian v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, (D. Nev. 2021).

Pincite

Adamian v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (Adamian v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related