Ankur Rakshit v. LayerX Technologies Inc., et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00911
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 Case No. 2:25-cv-00911-APG-NJK 6] ANKUR RAKSHIT, i Order 7 Plaintiff, [Docket No. 23] v. 9] LAYERX TECHNOLOGIES INC.), et al., 10 Defendants. 1] Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to stay discovery pending resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Docket No. 23.! 13 Having considered the governing standards, Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 14] 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013), the Court finds that a stay of discovery is warranted.” Accordingly, the 15] Court GRANTS the stipulation to stay discovery. Docket No. 23. If resolution of the motion to 16] dismiss does not result in termination of this case, the parties must file a joint proposed discovery 17} plan within 14 days of the issuance of the order resolving the motion to dismiss. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: September 29, 2025 A. Nancy J. Koppe * 21 United States Mp gistrate Judge 22 23 24), ———______ 55 ' The motion to dismiss is fully briefed. Docket Nos. 6, 10, 13. ? Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because 26] the assigned district judge will decide the underlying motion and may have a different view of the merits. See Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). The undersigned’s 27] “preliminary peek” at the merits of the motion for judgment on the pleadings is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. The undersigned carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the 28] underlying motion and related briefing, but will not provide discussion of the merits herein.