Klein v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust

Opinion

Shannon G. Splaine, Esq. Bryan C. Shartle – Pro Hac Vice Nevada Bar No. 8241 Bradley J. St. Angelo – Pro Hac Vice LINCOLN,GUSTAFSON &CERCOS LLP SESSIONS ISRAEL &SHARTLE, LLC 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 200 200 Metairie, LA 70002-7227 Las Vegas, NV 89169-5968 Tel: (504) 828-3700 Tel: (702) 257-1997 Fax: (504) 828-3737 Fax: (702) 257-2203 E-mail: bshartle@sessions.legal E-Mail: ssplaine@lgclawoffice.com E-mail: bstangelo@sessions.legal James K. Schultz, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10219 SESSIONS ISRAEL &SHARTLE,L.L.P. 1550 Hotel Circle North, Suite 260 San Diego, CA 92108 Tel: (619) 758-1891 Fax: (877) 334-0661 E-mail jschultz@sessions.legal Attorneys for Defendant Transworld Systems Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Richard Klein, et al., ) Case No. 2:22-cv-01392 GMN BNW ) Plaintiffs, ) STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR ) STAY OF DISCOVERY PENDING vs. ) RULINGS ON DEFENDANTS’ ) MOTIONS TO DISMISS National Collegiate Student Loan Trust ) 2005-3, et al., ) (First Request) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) It is hereby stipulated by Plaintiffs, Richard Klein, Raymond Urias and Sandra J. Gunter (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendants, Transworld Systems Inc. (“TSI”), National Collegiate Student Loan Trust (“NCSLT”) 2005-3, NCSLT 2006-3, NCSLT 2007-1, NCSLT 2007-2, and NCSLT 2007-3, and NCSLT 2007-4 (the “Trust Defendants”), and Pennsylvania High Education Assistance Agency (“PHEAA”) (collectively, “Defendants” and, with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), through undersigned counsel, that discovery in this action be stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ respective motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (the “Motions to Dismiss”) (ECF Nos. 39, 40, 42). In support of this Stipulated Motion, the Parties respectfully state as follows: On August 26, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against the Trust Defendants. ECF No. 1. On December 23, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (the “FAC), adding TSI and PHEAA as additional defendants. ECF No. 20. On March 8, 2023, TSI and the Trust Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the FAC. ECF Nos. 39, 40. On March 13, 2023, PHEAA filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC. ECF No. 42. On April 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to PHEAA’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 52. PHEAA’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss is currently due on April 17. Plaintiffs’ Oppositions to TSI and the Trust Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are currently due on April 19, 2023. See ECF No. 51. As the Ninth Circuit has confirmed, “[t]he purpose of F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is to enable defendants to challenge the legal sufficiency of complaints without subjecting themselves to discovery.” Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987). Likewise, a district court has “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) (describing the court’s ability to limit the scope of discovery). Ultimately, when deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, a court is guided by the objectives of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 that ensures a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Schrader v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 2021 WL 4810324, *3 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1); see also Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011) (explaining that courts evaluating the propriety of a stay have cautioned against the use of resources that may be rendered unnecessary, noting the simple, but accurate principle: “Discovery is expensive”). All Defendants have Motions to Dismiss pending before the Court seeking dismissal of all of Plaintiffs’ respective claims against each of them. See ECF Nos. 39, 40, 42. Plaintiffs have already filed an opposition to one of the Motions to Dismiss (ECF No. 52) and will soon file their oppositions to the two remaining motions. The Parties are in agreement that discovery is not required for the Court to decide the Motions to Dismiss. Because the Court’s ruling(s) on the Motions to Dismiss could potentially result in dismissal of the entire case (or some Defendants), it would be an inefficient use of resources to engage in discovery prior to the Court’s ruling. See Sibley v. U.S. Sup. Ct., 786 F. Supp. 2d 338, 346 (D.D.C. 2011) (“[I]t is well settled that discovery is generally considered inappropriate while a motion that would be thoroughly dispositive of the claims in the Complaint is pending.”). For the foregoing reasons, the Parties respectfully request the Court stay all discovery until the Court issues a decision on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Dated:April 18, 2023 FREEDOM LAW FIRM WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP /s/ George Haines /s/ Ramir M. Hernandez George Haines, Esq. Ramir M. Hernandez, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 9411 Nevada Bar No. 13146 Gerardo Avalos, Esq. Darren T. Brenner Nevada Bar No. 15171 Nevada Bar No. 8386 8985 South Eastern Ave., Suite 350 7785 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 (702) 475-7964; Fax: (702) 946-1345 PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC LOCKE LORD LLP Scott C. Harris* N.C. Bar No: 35328 /s/ J. Matthew Goodin 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 J. Matthew Goodin Telephone: (919) 600-5003 111 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4100 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 Chicago, Illinois 60606 sharris@milberg.com (312) 443-0472 Gary M. Klinger* jmgoodin@lockelord.com 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 866.252.0878 Attorneys for the Trust Defendants gklinger@milberg.com SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, *to motion for appearance pro hac vice LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the /s/ James K. Schultz Proposed Class Attorneys for Plaintiff James K. Schultz and on behalf of all others similarly Nevada Bar No. 10219 situated 1550 Hotel Circle North, Suite 260 San Diego, CA 92108 Tel: (619) 758-1891 Fax: (877) 334-0661 E-mail: jschultz@sessions.legal SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLC /s/ Bradley J. St. Angelo Bryan C. Shartle – Pro Hac Vice Bradley J. St. Angelo – Pro Hac Vice 3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 200 Metairie, LA 70002-7227 Tel: (504) 828-3700 Fax: (504) 828-3737 E-mail: bshartle@sessions.legal E-mail: bstangelo@sessions.legal LINCOLN, GUSTAFSON & Shannon G. Splaine, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 8241 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89169-5968 Tel: (702) 257-1997 Fax: (702) 257-2203 E-Mail: ssplaine@lgclawoffice.com Attorneys for Transworld Systems Inc. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER /s/ Patrick J. Reilly Patrick J. Reilly, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6103 Monique S. Jammer, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 15420 100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89106 Telephone: 702.382.2101 > Facsimile: 702.382.8135 preilly @bhfs.com mjammer@bhfs.com Attorneys for American Education Services, LLC Pursuant to the Parties’ stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Discovery in this matter is STAYED in its entirety pending a ruling on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 39, 40, 42). In the event the Court allows one or more claims to proceed, any remaining parties shall submit a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order no later than 14 days after the Court issues its ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED: EK gow La WER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED: April 20, 2023