Harper v. Nevada Property 1, LLC

Opinion

1 JENNY L. FOLEY, Ph.D., ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9017 2 E-mail: jfoley@hkm.com DANA SNIEGOCKI, ESQ. 3 Nevada Bar No. 11715 E-mail: dsniegocki@hkm.com 4 HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 1785 East Sahara, Suite 300 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 Tel: (702) 805-8340 6 Fax: (702) 920-8112 Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 MITCHELL E. HARPER, CASE NO.: 2:19-cv-02069-GMN-VCF 10 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 11 vs. STAY DISCOVERY PENDING THE COURT’S RULING ON 12 NEVADA PROPERTY 1, LLC dba DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COSMOPOLITAN OF LAS VEGAS, DISMISS (ECF NO. 9) 13 Defendants. (FIRST REQUEST) 14 15 16 Plaintiff MITHCELL E. HARPER and Defendant NEVADA PROPERTY 1, LLC, by 17 and through their counsel of record, stipulate to stay discovery pending the Court’s ruling on 18 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9), which seeks dismissal of all claims in Plaintiff’s 19 Complaint. 20 In assessing a request to stay discovery, the Court decides whether it is necessary to speed the parties along in discovery or whether it is appropriate to delay discovery and spare 21 the parties the associated expense. Tradebay, LLC v. Ebay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 22 2011). To make this assessment, the Court takes a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the 23 purportedly dispositive motion, though, importantly, this “preliminary peek” does not prejudge 24 1 the outcome of the motion, it merely evaluates whether an order staying discovery is warranted. 2 Id. The Motion to Dismiss in this instant action is the type warranting a stay of discovery as 3 Defendant has sought to dismiss five out of the six causes of action asserted by Plaintiff. 4 Moreover, no discovery is required to make a determination on the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion to Dismiss raises threshold legal issues (e.g., statute of limitations, failure to exhaust 5 administrative remedies, and preemption). Accordingly, requiring the parties to conduct 6 discovery on claims that may be dismissed and may not be curable by amendment would cause 7 an unnecessary expense on the parties and potentially log the Court’s docket with unnecessary 8 discovery disputes on these claims. Additionally, because Defendant moved to dismiss the 9 claims, Plaintiff has not been apprised of which factual allegations Defendant intends to admit, 10 and which Defendant intends to deny. Nor has Plaintiff been apprised of the defenses 11 Defendant intends to assert. Plaintiff believes this would limit his ability to conduct full discovery while the Motion to Dismiss is pending. Plaintiff disputes the arguments made in 12 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss but agrees that the motion is of the type warranting a stay of 13 discovery. 14 /// 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 ] In light of the foregoing, the parties request a stay of discovery until a decision 2 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is issued. The parties further stipulate and agree to 3 || submit their Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order within ten (10) calendar 4 || days of a decision on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 6 || Dated this 12 day of August, 2020. 8 || HKM EMPLOYMENT JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 9 ATTORNEYS LLP /s/ Jenny L. Foley By: /s/ Lisa A. McClane 10 || Jenny L. Foley, Ph.D., Esq. Lisa A. McClane NV Bar No. 10139 Nevada Bar No. 9017 Daniel I. Aquino NV Bar No. 12682 IT || 1785 East Sahara, Suite 300 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 900 12 ll Tel: (702) 805-8340 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 E-mail: jfoley@hkm.com Tel: (702) 921-2460 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff Email: lisa.mcclane@jacksonlewis.com Email: daniel.aquino@jacksonlewis.com 14 Attorneys for Defendant 15 16 ORDER 17 IT IS SO ORDERED:

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 DATED: 8-12-2020 21 22 23 24

Pace 3 of 3