Bobadilla v. State of Nevada, ex rel. its Department of Probation and Parole

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 14, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00723
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 E E. .B BR RE EN NT T B BR RY YS SO ON N, , EL ST QD .. Nevada Bar No. 004933 2 375 E. Warm Springs Road, Suite 104 3 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 (702)364-1234 Telephone 4 (702)364-1442 Facsimile Ebbesqltd@yahoo.com 5 Attorney for Plaintiff, 6 April Bobadilla 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 APRIL BOBADILLA, an individual, 10 Case No.: 2:23-cv-00723-GMN-DJA Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel. its DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND PAROLE; DOE 13 DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND PAROLE JOINT STIPULATION TO SUPERVISORS I through X, inclusive; and ROE 14 STAY DISCOVERY AS TO DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND PAROLE PLAINTIFF APRIL 15 EMPLOYEES XI through XV, inclusive; LAS BOBADILLA AND VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE 16 DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the State DEFENDANT LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE of Nevada; DOE LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN 17 POLICE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISORS I through DEPARTMENT X, inclusive; ROE LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN 18 POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS XI through 19 XV, inclusive; 20 Defendants. 21 Pursuant to Local Rules LR 7-1 and IA 6-2, Plaintiff APRIL BOBADILLA (hereinafter 22 “Bobadilla”) and Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (hereinafter “LVMPD”), 23 hereby stipulate and agree to stay discovery as to Bobadilla and LVMPD in this case pending 24 resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant the State of Nevada ex rel. 25 Department of Public Safety, Division of Parole and Probation (hereinafter “NPP”) (ECF No. 12). 26 The parties submit that good cause exists for this stipulation to be granted to avoid wasting the 27 parties’ and this Court’s time, as well as unnecessarily incurring duplicative fees and costs. 1 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS 2 Here, on October 4, 2023, a Joint Stipulation to Stay Discovery as to Nevada Division of 3 Parole and Probation Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss was entered. That Joint Stipulation 4 stayed discovery as to Nevada Division of Parole and Probation (“NPP”) only, pending resolution 5 of NPP’s Motion to Dismiss. Although that motion does not address Bobadilla’s causes of action 6 against LVMPD, if the Motion is denied, any discovery completed between Bobadilla and 7 LVMPD prior to resolution of the Motion will potentially need to be duplicated with NPP’s 8 participation. 9 II. LEGAL STANDARD 10 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), and the Court's inherent authority and 11 discretion to manage its own docket, this Court has the authority to grant the requested stay. 12 Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time the court may, for 13 good cause, extend the time....”). A stipulation to stay proceedings, like the Parties seek here, is an 14 appropriate exercise of this Court's jurisdiction. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 15 (1936) (explaining a court's power to stay proceedings is incidental to its inherent power to control 16 the disposition of the cases on its docket to save the time and effort of the court, counsel, and the 17 parties). 18 Furthermore, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d) also vest the Court with 19 authority to limit the scope of discovery or control its sequence and may grant a stay to allow 20 parties to negotiate a settlement. See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598. 21 When evaluating a request to stay discovery, the court initially considers the goal of Federal 22 Rule of Civil Procedure 1, which states that the Rules “should be construed, administered, and 23 employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of 24 every action.” Sanchez v. Windhaven Nat'l Ins. Co., 2:19-cv-02196-RFB-VCF, 2020 WL 3489333 25 (D. Nev. 2020). Whether to grant a stay is within the discretion of the court, particularly where, as 26 here, a stay would promote judicial economy and efficiency. See e.g. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 27 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (district courts possess 1 promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”);” and Munoz-Santana 2 v.U.S. I.N.S., 742 F.2d 561, 562 (9th Cir. 1984). 3 III. A STAY IS WARRANTED PENDING RESOLUTION OF NPP’S MOTION TO 4 DISMISS AND LIFTING OF THE DISCOVERY STAY AS BETWEEN 5 BOBADILLA AND NPP. 6 As stated above, the Court should construe the Rules “to secure the just, speedy, and 7 inexpensive determination of every action.” Sanchez, 2020 WL 3489333 at *2. Here, the Parties 8 agree that it is in the best interest of all Parties, as well as the Court, to stay discovery and 9 proceedings pending the outcome of NPP’s Motion to Dismiss. The parties seek to stay discovery 10 to avoid incurring attorney’s fees, expert fees, and costs which will require duplication in the event 11 NPP’s Motion to Dismiss is denied. 12 DATED this 7th day of November, 2023. DATED this 7th day of November, 2023. 13 E.BRENT BRYSON, LTD. MARQUIS AURBACH 14 /s/ E. Brent Bryson, Esq. /s/ Nick D. Crosby, Esq. 15 E.BRENT BRYSON, ESQ. Nick D. Crosby, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 004933 Nevada Bar No. 008996 16 375 E. Warm Springs Road, Suite 104 10001 Park Run Drive 17 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 (702)364-1234 Telephone Telephone: (702) 382-0711 18 (702)364-1442 Facsimile Facsimile: (702) 382-5816 Ebbesqltd@yahoo.com ncrosby@maclaw.com 19 Attorney for Plaintiff, Attorneys for Defendant LVMPD April Bobadilla 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | ORDER 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Discovery in this matter is stayed as to Plaintiff April Bobadilla 3 | and Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department pending the Court’s ruling on the 4 | pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12). ) we U.S. MAGISTRATE\JUDGE 7 8 Dated: __ 11/14/2023 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28