Harrington v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

N.D. California

Harrington v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

DecidedMay 29, 2024

Docket4:23-cv-06296

StatusUnknown

This text of Harrington v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Harrington v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harrington v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL J HARRINGTON, et al., Case No. 23-cv-06296-HSG 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 9 y MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY Re: Dkt. No. 39 10 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant. a 12

13 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery during the pendency of

14 || Defendant’s prior-filed motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 39. The Court finds this matter appropriate

15 || for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 16 Defendant argues that a stay of discovery under Rule 26(c) is appropriate here, and the

= 17 || Court agrees: it finds that because (1) Defendant’s motion to dismiss is “potentially dispositive of

18 || the entire case” on Jurisdictional grounds and (2) “the pending dispositive motion can be decided 19 || absent discovery,” Defendant has established good cause for a stay of discovery. In re Nexus 6p 20 || Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 17-CV-02185-BLF, 2017 WL 3581188, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017). 21 || And since the Court has not yet established a case schedule for this matter, a temporary pause on 22 || discovery does not stand to unduly prejudice Plaintiffs. 23 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion, Dkt. No. 39, and orders discovery 24 || STAYED pending resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 28. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: 5/29/2024 27 Alapurl 5 > HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 8 United States District Judge

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

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL J HARRINGTON, et al., Case No. 23-cv-06296-HSG 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 9 y MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY Re: Dkt. No. 39 10 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant. a 12

13 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery during the pendency of

14 || Defendant’s prior-filed motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 39. The Court finds this matter appropriate

15 || for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 16 Defendant argues that a stay of discovery under Rule 26(c) is appropriate here, and the

= 17 || Court agrees: it finds that because (1) Defendant’s motion to dismiss is “potentially dispositive of

18 || the entire case” on Jurisdictional grounds and (2) “the pending dispositive motion can be decided 19 || absent discovery,” Defendant has established good cause for a stay of discovery. In re Nexus 6p 20 || Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 17-CV-02185-BLF, 2017 WL 3581188, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017). 21 || And since the Court has not yet established a case schedule for this matter, a temporary pause on 22 || discovery does not stand to unduly prejudice Plaintiffs. 23 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion, Dkt. No. 39, and orders discovery 24 || STAYED pending resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 28. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: 5/29/2024 27 Alapurl 5 > HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 8 United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Harrington v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrington-v-federal-deposit-insurance-corporation-cand-2024.