Klein v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 20, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01392
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 Shannon G. Splaine, Esq. Bryan C. Shartle – Pro Hac Vice Nevada Bar No. 8241 Bradley J. St. Angelo – Pro Hac Vice 2 LINCOLN,GUSTAFSON &CERCOS LLP SESSIONS ISRAEL &SHARTLE, LLC 3 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 200 4 200 Metairie, LA 70002-7227 Las Vegas, NV 89169-5968 Tel: (504) 828-3700 5 Tel: (702) 257-1997 Fax: (504) 828-3737 6 Fax: (702) 257-2203 E-mail: bshartle@sessions.legal E-Mail: ssplaine@lgclawoffice.com E-mail: bstangelo@sessions.legal 7 8 James K. Schultz, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10219 9 SESSIONS ISRAEL &SHARTLE,L.L.P. 10 1550 Hotel Circle North, Suite 260 11 San Diego, CA 92108 Tel: (619) 758-1891 12 Fax: (877) 334-0661 13 E-mail jschultz@sessions.legal 14 Attorneys for Defendant Transworld Systems Inc. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 17 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 18 Richard Klein, et al., ) Case No. 2:22-cv-01392 GMN BNW 19 ) 20 Plaintiffs, ) STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR ) STAY OF DISCOVERY PENDING 21 vs. ) RULINGS ON DEFENDANTS’ 22 ) MOTIONS TO DISMISS National Collegiate Student Loan Trust ) 23 2005-3, et al., ) (First Request) 24 ) 25 Defendants. ) ) 26 ) 27 ) ) 28 ) 1 STIPULATION 2 It is hereby stipulated by Plaintiffs, Richard Klein, Raymond Urias and 3 Sandra J. Gunter (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendants, Transworld Systems Inc. (“TSI”), 4 National Collegiate Student Loan Trust (“NCSLT”) 2005-3, NCSLT 2006-3, 5 NCSLT 2007-1, NCSLT 2007-2, and NCSLT 2007-3, and NCSLT 2007-4 (the 6 “Trust Defendants”), and Pennsylvania High Education Assistance Agency 7 (“PHEAA”) (collectively, “Defendants” and, with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), through 8 undersigned counsel, that discovery in this action be stayed pending resolution of 9 Defendants’ respective motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint 10 (the “Motions to Dismiss”) (ECF Nos. 39, 40, 42). In support of this Stipulated 11 Motion, the Parties respectfully state as follows: 12 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 13 On August 26, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against the Trust 14 Defendants. ECF No. 1. 15 On December 23, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (the 16 “FAC), adding TSI and PHEAA as additional defendants. ECF No. 20. 17 On March 8, 2023, TSI and the Trust Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss 18 the FAC. ECF Nos. 39, 40. 19 On March 13, 2023, PHEAA filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC. ECF No. 20 42. 21 On April 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to PHEAA’s Motion to 22 Dismiss. ECF No. 52. 23 PHEAA’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss is currently due on April 24 17. 25 Plaintiffs’ Oppositions to TSI and the Trust Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss 26 are currently due on April 19, 2023. See ECF No. 51. 27 28 1 II. LAW AND ARGUMENT 2 As the Ninth Circuit has confirmed, “[t]he purpose of F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is 3 to enable defendants to challenge the legal sufficiency of complaints without 4 subjecting themselves to discovery.” Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 5 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987). Likewise, a district court has “wide discretion 6 in controlling discovery.” Little v. Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); see 7 also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) (describing the court’s ability to limit the scope of 8 discovery). Ultimately, when deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, a court 9 is guided by the objectives of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 that ensures a “just, 10 speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Schrader v. Wynn Las 11 Vegas, LLC, 2021 WL 4810324, *3 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. 12 P. 1); see also Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011) 13 (explaining that courts evaluating the propriety of a stay have cautioned against the 14 use of resources that may be rendered unnecessary, noting the simple, but accurate 15 principle: “Discovery is expensive”). 16 All Defendants have Motions to Dismiss pending before the Court seeking 17 dismissal of all of Plaintiffs’ respective claims against each of them. See ECF Nos. 18 39, 40, 42. Plaintiffs have already filed an opposition to one of the Motions to 19 Dismiss (ECF No. 52) and will soon file their oppositions to the two remaining 20 motions. The Parties are in agreement that discovery is not required for the Court 21 to decide the Motions to Dismiss. Because the Court’s ruling(s) on the Motions to 22 Dismiss could potentially result in dismissal of the entire case (or some 23 Defendants), it would be an inefficient use of resources to engage in discovery 24 prior to the Court’s ruling. See Sibley v. U.S. Sup. Ct., 786 F. Supp. 2d 338, 346 25 (D.D.C. 2011) (“[I]t is well settled that discovery is generally considered 26 inappropriate while a motion that would be thoroughly dispositive of the claims in 27 the Complaint is pending.”). 28 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Parties respectfully request the Court stay all 3 discovery until the Court issues a decision on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the 4 FAC. 5 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 6 Dated:April 18, 2023 7 FREEDOM LAW FIRM WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP 8 /s/ George Haines /s/ Ramir M. Hernandez 9 George Haines, Esq. Ramir M. Hernandez, Esq. 10 Nevada Bar No. 9411 Nevada Bar No. 13146 Gerardo Avalos, Esq. Darren T. Brenner 11 Nevada Bar No. 15171 Nevada Bar No. 8386 12 8985 South Eastern Ave., Suite 350 7785 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 13 (702) 475-7964; Fax: (702) 946-1345 14 MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC LOCKE LORD LLP 15 Scott C. Harris* 16 N.C. Bar No: 35328 /s/ J. Matthew Goodin 900 W. Morgan Street 17 Raleigh, NC 27603 J. Matthew Goodin Telephone: (919) 600-5003 111 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4100 18 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 Chicago, Illinois 60606 sharris@milberg.com 19 (312) 443-0472 Gary M. Klinger* jmgoodin@lockelord.com 20 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 21 Phone: 866.252.0878 Attorneys for the Trust Defendants gklinger@milberg.com 22 SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, 23 *to motion for appearance pro hac vice LLP 24 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the /s/ James K. Schultz 25 Proposed Class Attorneys for Plaintiff James K. Schultz and on behalf of all others similarly 26 Nevada Bar No. 10219 situated 27 1550 Hotel Circle North, Suite 260 San Diego, CA 92108 28 Tel: (619) 758-1891 1 Fax: (877) 334-0661 E-mail: jschultz@sessions.legal 2 3 SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, 4 LLC 5 /s/ Bradley J. St. Angelo 6 Bryan C. Shartle – Pro Hac Vice Bradley J. St. Angelo – Pro Hac Vice 7 3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 200 8 Metairie, LA 70002-7227 Tel: (504) 828-3700 9 Fax: (504) 828-3737 10 E-mail: bshartle@sessions.legal 11 E-mail: bstangelo@sessions.legal 12 LINCOLN, GUSTAFSON & 13 CERCOS LLP 14 Shannon G. Splaine, Esq. 15 Nevada Bar No. 8241 16 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200 17 Las Vegas, NV 89169-5968 18 Tel: (702) 257-1997 Fax: (702) 257-2203 19 E-Mail: ssplaine@lgclawoffice.com 20 21 Attorneys for Transworld Systems Inc. 22 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER 23 SCHRECK, LLP 24 /s/ Patrick J. Reilly 25 Patrick J. Reilly, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6103 26 Monique S. Jammer, Esq. 27 Nevada Bar No. 15420 28 100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89106 1 Telephone: 702.382.2101 > Facsimile: 702.382.8135 preilly @bhfs.com 3 mjammer@bhfs.com Attorneys for American Education 5 Services, LLC 6 7 ORDER 8 Pursuant to the Parties’ stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 9 Discovery in this matter is STAYED in its entirety pending a ruling on 10 Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 39, 40, 42). In the event the Court 11 || allows one or more claims to proceed, any remaining parties shall submit a proposed 12 ||discovery plan and scheduling order no later than 14 days after the Court 13 || issues its ruling. 14 || IT IS SO ORDERED: 15 16 17 EK gow La WER 18 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 0 || DATED: April 20, 2023 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28