Jackson v. Unicity International, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 5, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00738
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 MATTHEW JACKSON, Case No. 2:25-cv-00738-GMN-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order 8 v. [Docket No. 29] 9 UNICITY INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is Defendant Anytime Labor’s motion to stay discovery pending 12 resolution of its motion to compel arbitration. Docket No. 29; see also Docket No. 28 (motion to 13 compel arbitration). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 33. Anytime Labor filed 14 a reply. Docket No. 39. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78- 15 1.1 16 A stay pending resolution of a motion to compel arbitration is warranted when it is 17 potentially dispositive, it can be decided without discovery, and there is a reasonable possibility 18 or probability that the district judge will compel arbitration. Arik v. Meyers, 2020 WL 515843, at 19 *1-2 (D. Nev. Jan. 31, 2020) (citing Shaughnessy v. Credit Acceptance Corp. of Nev., 2007 WL 20 9728688, at *2-3 (D. Nev. Nov. 28, 2007)). Courts frequently stay discovery pending resolution 21 of a motion to compel arbitration. See, e.g., Mahamedi IP Law, LLP v. Paradice & Li, LLP, 2017 22 23 24

25 1 A motion to stay discovery is, at bottom, a motion for protective order brought pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Flynn v. Nev., 345 F.R.D. 338, 26 346 n.13 (D. Nev. 2024). Plaintiff is correct that a prefiling conference is required. See, e.g., Local Rule 26-6(c). Nonetheless, the parties are clearly at an impasse and there is no point in 27 denying this motion without prejudice just so that it may be refiled. The Court in its discretion declines to enforce the prefiling conference requirement in the circumstances of this case. Cf. V5 28 Techs. v. Switch, Ltd., 334 F.R.D. 297, 302 & n.3 (D. Nev. 2019). 1] WL 2727874, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) (collecting cases). The circumstances here justify a 2|| stay of discovery.’ 3 Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. In the event the motion to 4! compel arbitration is not granted, an amended joint proposed scheduling order must be filed within 5] 14 days of resolution of the motion to compel arbitration.> 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: August 5, 2025

Nancy J. Koppe. 9 United States“Magistrate Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21) ____ The Court finds that there is a reasonable possibility or probability that the district judge 22| will compel arbitration. Conducting the preliminary peek can put a magistrate judge in an awkward position and is not intended to prejudice the outcome of the underlying motion. See Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). As such, the Court will not 54 provide herein discussion of the merits of the motion to compel arbitration. > A stay of discovery is generally limited to the discovery impacted by the underlying 25] dispositive motion. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602 (“the pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case or at least dispositive on the issue on which discovery is sought’ (emphasis added)). As a corollary, discovery is generally not stayed as to defendants that did not file or join the underlying dispositive motion. White v. Am. Tobacco Co., 125 F.R.D. 508, 510 (D. Nev. 1989). The stay imposed herein applies only to Anytime Labor and does not apply to Defendant Unicity International. See Galaxia Elecs. Co. v. Luxmax, U.S.A., 2017 WL 11566394, 28} at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2017).