Alexander v. The Croix Townhomes LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 2, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-02051
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 F. THOMAS EDWARDS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9549 2 E-mail: tedwards@nevadafirm.com JESSICA M. LUJAN, ESQ. 3 Nevada Bar No. 14913 E-mail: jlujan@nevadafirm.com 4 HOLLEY DRIGGS 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 1600 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: 702/791-0308 6 Attorneys for Defendants The Croix Townhomes LLC; 7 Donald B. Gaines, Co-Trustee of the Gaines Investment Trust; and Lizbeth Estrada 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 KEVIN ALEXANDER, an individual; and 11 ALMA ALEXANDER, an individual, CASE NO.: 2:22-cv-02051-CDS-EJY 12 Plaintiffs,

13 v.

14 THE CROIX TOWNHOMES LLC, a Nevada STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY limited liability company; GAINES DISCOVERY 15 INVESTMENT TRUST, a limited liability company; DONALD B. GAINES, CO 16 TRUSTEE of the GAINES INVESTMENT (FIRST REQUEST) TRUST; PAM GAINES, CO-TRUSTEE of the 17 GAINES INVESTMENT TRUST; LIZBETH ESTRADA, an individual; DOE INDIVIDUALS 18 I through X; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I through X, inclusive. 19 Defendants. 20 21 Defendants The Croix Townhomes LLC (“Croix”), Donald B. Gaines, Co-Trustee of the 22 Gaines Investment Trust (“D. Gaines”), and Lizbeth Estrada (“Estrada”) (collectively, 23 “Defendants”), by and through the law firm of Holley Driggs, and Plaintiffs Kevin Alexander and 24 Alma Alexander (together, “Plaintiffs”), by and through the law firm of Alexis Brown Law, Chtd., 25 hereby STIPULATE and agree as follows: 26 1. Defendants removed this action to federal court from Clark County District Court 27 (the “District Court”) on December 9, 2022. See (ECF No. 1). 28 / / / 1 2. On January 9, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand this action to District Court 2 (ECF No. 13). That motion has since been fully briefed by the parties and awaits adjudication by 3 the Court. 4 3. On January 23, 2023, Defendants filed a special anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss 5 pursuant to NRS 41.660. (ECF No. 17). That motion is set to be fully briefed on or before March 6 7, 2023. See (ECF No. 23) (Order granting extension of time for Defendants to file reply in support 7 of ECF No. 17). 8 4. No discovery plan or scheduling order has been adopted by the Court in this action 9 as of the date of this stipulation. 10 5. “Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery.” Estate of Evans v. 11 Kinecta Fed. Credit Union, 213CV01160GMNCWH, 2014 WL 12790972, at *1 (D. Nev. June 12 27, 2014) (citation omitted). However, the “mere fact that parties stipulate to a stay does not limit 13 the Court’s discretion to order a stay.” Id. “Courts generally insist on a particular and specific 14 demonstration of fact as opposed to merely conclusory statements that a stay is warranted.” Id. at 15 *2. 16 6. “[P]reliminary issues such as jurisdiction, venue, or immunity are common 17 situations that may justify a stay.” Id. Courts in this district have granted stipulations to stay 18 discovery in instances where a motion to remand and/or a motion to dismiss is pending. See, e.g., 19 Wood v. Nautilus Ins. Group, 217CV02393MMDCWH, 2017 WL 4682779, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 20 18, 2017) (“IT IS ORDERED that discovery is STAYED pending the court's rulings on the 21 motions to dismiss and to remand.”); Abbott v. Apple, Inc., 222CV00423RFBBNW, 2023 WL 22 319863, at *1 (D. Nev. Jan. 19, 2023) (“the parties filed a Stipulation to Stay Discovery, pending 23 a decision on the Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 27. Magistrate Judge, Brenda Weksler, granted the 24 Stipulation to Stay Discovery”). 25 7. Here, the parties agree in good faith that a stay of discovery is warranted to conserve 26 time and resources of the parties by avoiding undue expense and procedure before a tribunal that 27 may not ultimately retain jurisdiction over the case as a whole, or over certain claims that 28 Defendants have argued are subject to dismissal. The parties desire to know whether—or the extent 1 |} to which—this Court will retain jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ claims before proceeding wit 2 || potentially costly and time-consuming discovery in this matter. Accordingly, the parties 3 || respectfully request a stay of discovery until such time as the Court has issued a decision in| 4 || connection with the pending motions (ECF Nos. 13 and 17). 5 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 6 DATED this Ist day of March, 2023. DATED this Ist day of March, 2023. 7 HOLLEY DRIGGS ALEXIS BROWN LAW, CHTD. 8 ? /s/ F. Thomas Edwards /s/ Alexis L Brown 10 F, THOMAS EDWARDS, ESQ. ALEXIS L. BROWN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9549 Nevada Bar No. 12338 11 JESSICA M. LUJAN, ESQ. 725 S. 8th St., Suite 200 Nevada Bar No. 14913 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 12 | 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 1600 13 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorney for Plaintiffs 14 Attorneys for Defendants The Croix Townhomes LLC; Donald B. Gaines, Co- 15 Trustee of the Gaines Investment Trust; and Lizbeth Estrada 16 17 ORDER 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 21 UNITEB STA \ AGJSTRATE JUDGE 22 23 DATED: March 2,2023 0 24 25 26 27 28