Carl E. McQuillon v. Bank United of Texas FSB, et al.

D. Nevada

Carl E. McQuillon v. Bank United of Texas FSB, et al.

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided February 10, 2026·No. 2:25-cv-02484·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Case No. 2:25-cv-02484-JCM-NJK Plaintiff, Order v.

BANK UNITED OF TEXAS FSB, et al., Defendants. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ status report regarding discovery plan.1 Docket No. 12. The Court ordered the parties to file a joint discovery plan by February 9, 2026. Docket No. 11. To date, the parties have failed to comply with the Court’s order. See Docket. In the instant status report, Defendants request that this Court either (1) grant a stay of all discovery until after the pending dispositive motions are decided, or (2) extend the deadline to confer with Plaintiff and file a discovery plan or formal motion to stay discovery until February 23, 2026.2 Docket No. 12 at 2. Defendants submit that Plaintiff is appearing pro se and defense counsel has not yet conferred with Plaintiff regarding the stay or any discovery plan in this case. Id. As to the first request, “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Defendants improperly seek a stay of discovery without addressing the relevant standards; therefore, the Court declines to order a stay of discovery. As to the second request, Defendants improperly seek to extend the deadline to file a joint discovery plan or motion to stay discovery; however, Defendants fail to provide reasons for the extension requested beyond merely asserting that “defense counsel has not yet conferred with 1 LR IA 7-1 provides that “[a]ll communications with the court must be styled as a motion, stipulation, or notice.” 2 Requests are properly made via stipulation or motion, not a status report. 1} Plaintiff.” Docket No. 12 at 2; see also LR IA 6-1 (“A motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the extension requested”). Nonetheless, in the interest of resolving this case on its merits, and as a one-time courtesy to the parties, the Court will afford the parties an extension. The parties ace ORDERED to submit 5] a joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order or a proper request to stay discovery pending 6] resolution of the motions to dismiss addressing the relevant standards, no later than February 16, 2026. Dated: February 10, 2026

Nancy J. Koppe * United States Magistrate Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Case No. 2:25-cv-02484-JCM-NJK Plaintiff, Order v.

BANK UNITED OF TEXAS FSB, et al., Defendants. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ status report regarding discovery plan.1 Docket No. 12. The Court ordered the parties to file a joint discovery plan by February 9, 2026. Docket No. 11. To date, the parties have failed to comply with the Court’s order. See Docket. In the instant status report, Defendants request that this Court either (1) grant a stay of all discovery until after the pending dispositive motions are decided, or (2) extend the deadline to confer with Plaintiff and file a discovery plan or formal motion to stay discovery until February 23, 2026.2 Docket No. 12 at 2. Defendants submit that Plaintiff is appearing pro se and defense counsel has not yet conferred with Plaintiff regarding the stay or any discovery plan in this case. Id. As to the first request, “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Defendants improperly seek a stay of discovery without addressing the relevant standards; therefore, the Court declines to order a stay of discovery. As to the second request, Defendants improperly seek to extend the deadline to file a joint discovery plan or motion to stay discovery; however, Defendants fail to provide reasons for the extension requested beyond merely asserting that “defense counsel has not yet conferred with 1 LR IA 7-1 provides that “[a]ll communications with the court must be styled as a motion, stipulation, or notice.” 2 Requests are properly made via stipulation or motion, not a status report. 1} Plaintiff.” Docket No. 12 at 2; see also LR IA 6-1 (“A motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the extension requested”). Nonetheless, in the interest of resolving this case on its merits, and as a one-time courtesy to the parties, the Court will afford the parties an extension. The parties ace ORDERED to submit 5] a joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order or a proper request to stay discovery pending 6] resolution of the motions to dismiss addressing the relevant standards, no later than February 16, 2026. Dated: February 10, 2026

Nancy J. Koppe * United States Magistrate Judge

Carl E. McQuillon v. Bank United of Texas FSB, et al., (D. Nev. 2026).

Pincite

Carl E. McQuillon v. Bank United of Texas FSB, et al. (Carl E. McQuillon v. Bank United of Texas FSB, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related