Ink Projects, LLC v. Ruben Kasper, LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 19, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01568
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 NATALIE L. WINSLOW Nevada Bar No. 12125 2 NICHOLAS E. BELAY Nevada Bar No. 15175 3 AKERMAN LLP 1635 Village Center Circle, Suite 200 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 5 Telephone: (702) 634-5000 Facsimile: (702) 380-8572 6 Email: natalie.winslow@akerman.com Email: nicholas.belay@akerman.com 7 8 ANDREW P. GOLD Florida Bar No. 612367 9 AKERMAN LLP 201 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1800 10 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 463-2700 11 Facsimile: (954) 847-5377 12 Email: andrew.gold@akerman.com 13 Attorneys for Ink Projects LLC 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 16 17 INK PROJECTS, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-1568-JCM-BNW 18 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY 19 v. DISCOVERY 20 RUBEN KASPER, LLC, RUBEN 21 ESTRELLADO, and MARVIN (FIRST REQUEST) ESTRELLADO, 22 Defendants. 23 24 Defendants RUBEN KASPER, LLC, RUBEN ESTRELLADO, and MARVIN 25 ESTRELLADO (collectively, "Defendants"), by and through their counsel of record, Kemp Jones, 26 LLP, and Plaintiff INK PROJECTS, LLC ("Perma Blend"), by and through its counsel of record, 27 Akerman LLP, hereby stipulate and agree to stay discovery pending resolution of Defendants' motions 1 1. Perma Blend initiated this action on October 2, 2023, alleging causes of action for: (1) 2 breach of contract; (2) tortious interference; (3) unfair and deceptive trade practices; and (4) 3 defamation. ECF Nos. 1, 2. 4 2. Perma Blend subsequently moved for a preliminary injunction on October 12, 2023. 5 ECF No. 9. The motion is fully briefed and ripe for a decision. ECF Nos. 28, 32. 6 3. To accommodate for briefing on the preliminary injunction, as well as various time and 7 scheduling constraints on counsel, Perma Blend agreed to extend Defendants' responsive pleading 8 deadline until December 20, 2023. 9 4. On December 4, 2023, Defendants filed a Special Anti-Slapp Motion to Dismiss 10 Pursuant to NRS 41.660. ECF No. 33. The motion is fully briefed and ripe for a decision. ECF Nos. 11 38, 41. 12 5. On December 20, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 13 12(b)(6). ECF No. 37. The motion is fully briefed and ripe for a decision. ECF Nos. 44, 48. 14 6. On February 15, 2024, this Court issued an order directing the parties to file a proposed 15 discovery plan by February 29, 2024. ECF No. 47.1 16 7. Since this time, the parties have conferred regarding discovery and case deadlines, and 17 agree to a stay of discovery pending resolution of the motions to dismiss. 18 8. Federal district courts have "wide discretion in controlling discovery." Little v. City of 19 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). In exercising this discretion, a district court may stay 20 discovery based on the filing of a motion that is "potential dispositive of the entire case." Tradebay, 21 LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). See also Turner Broadcasting Sys. v. Tracinda 22 Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) (holding that "[w]hether to grant a stay is within the 23 discretion of the Court…"). 24 9. In addition, Defendants contend that discovery should be stayed pursuant to NRS 25 41.660(3)(e). 26 10. The parties submit that a stay of discovery promotes judicial economy and efficiency 27 as between the parties for several reasons. 1 a. First, while Permablend does not concede that either of the motions to dismiss have 2 merit, Permablend recognizes that the motions address certain threshold issues 3 regarding choice of law and contract interpretation that could potentially narrow 4 the scope of discovery in this case. Regardless of how the Court ultimately rules 5 on these pending motions, the Court's decision is likely to provide necessary clarity. 6 b. Second, the Parties are actively exploring the potential for settlement. A stay of 7 discovery will allow the Parties to continue these discussions before incurring 8 additional expenses on written discovery and related motion practice, which could 9 impact the Parties’ progress in these discussions. 10 Cc. Third, and relatedly, the Parties are currently discussing the potential for , Ill alternative dispute resolution and/or mediation. To the extent the Parties can reach 12 an agreement, the Parties submit it is in the best interest of both the Parties and the 13 Court to wait until the mediation process has been completed prior to setting

14 discovery deadlines and incurring the time and expense of written discovery, 15 depositions, and anticipated motion practice.

16 11. Based on the foregoing, and in order to preserve the Parties’ resources and to promote 17| judicial economy, the Parties have agreed subject to the Court's approval to stay discovery pending 18| resolution of the pending motions to dismiss. 19 12. The Parties submit this stipulation in good faith and not for the purpose of delay or 20] prejudice to any party. DATED this 15 day of March, 2024. DATED this 15" day of March, 2024. 22| KEMP JONES LLP AKERMAN LLP 23| By:_/s/ Katrina Stark By:_/s/ Nicholas E. Belay Michael J. Gayan, Esq., SBN 11135 Natalie L. Winslow, SBN 12125 24 Katrina Stark, Esq., SBN 16006 Nicholas E. Belay, SBN 15175 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, 17th Floor Andrew P. Gold 25 Las Vegas, Nevada 86169 1635 Village Center Circle, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 26 Attorneys for Defendants Attorneys for Plaintiff 27 IT IS SO ORDERED: 28 DATED: 3/19/2024 les WO FRR | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE