Layton v. Green Valley Village Community Association

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 27, 2022
• Docket: 2:14-cv-01347
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 THOMAS LAYTON, Case No. 2:14-cv-01347-GMN-EJY

4 Plaintiff, ORDER 5 v.

6 GREEN VALLEY VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, dba GREEN 7 VALLEY VILLAGE HOA, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Motions to 11 Dismiss and Motion to Set Briefing Schedule on Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions.1 ECF 12 No. 107 The Court has considered Defendants’ Motion Plaintiff’s Opposition (ECF No. 110), and 13 Defendants’ Reply (ECF No. 114). 14 I. Background 15 Defendants’ Motion and Reply explain that this case was stayed on April 29, 2015, at 16 Plaintiff’s request, to allow Plaintiff to pursue administrative remedies through the Nevada Real 17 Estate Division. On April 4, 2022, Plaintiff moved to lift the stay, demonstrating he had exhausted 18 those remedies. Defendants did not oppose lifting the stay. 19 Defendants’ previously filed Motions to Dismiss remain pending before the Court. ECF 20 Nos. 66 and 84. It is the content of those Motions on which Defendants base their request for a stay 21 of discovery. Defendants believe their Motions to Dismiss are dispositive and likely to resolve this 22 case in its entirety. Defendants also contend the Motions to Dismiss can be decided without 23 discovery. Thus, Defendants argue their Motions to Dismiss meet the requirements for a stay of 24 discovery under well established law. ECF No. 107 at 2-3.

25 26

27 1 Defendants no longer seek a scheduling order on the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions. ECF No. 114 at 1. 1 Plaintiff’s Opposition does not respond to Defendants’ substantive arguments. ECF No. 110. 2 Instead, Plaintiff argues that when the District Judge lifted the stay of the case in April of this year, 3 granting Plaintiff’s Motion seeking this result and his desire to move forward with discovery, she 4 ruled on whether to stay discovery. ECF No. 110 at 1-2. 5 II. Discussion 6 A. Plaintiff Does Not Respond To The Substance Of Defendants’ Motion. 7 Well settled law in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada establishes that a party’s 8 failure to respond to arguments presented in a motion constitutes consent to granting that motion. 9 Knickmeyer v. Nevada ex rel Eighth Judicial District Court, 173 F.Supp.3d 1034, 1044 (D. Nev. 10 2016) citing, inter alia, Duensing v. Gilbert, Case No. 2:11-cv-01747-GMN-VCF, 2013 WL 11 1316890, at *5 n.3 (D. Nev. Mar. 1, 2013) (failing to respond to defendant’s arguments on an issue 12 constitutes consent to the granting of the motion); Schmitt v. Furlong, Case No. 3:11-cv-00602–LRH- 13 VPC, 2013 WL 432632, at *4 (D. Nev. Feb. 4, 2013) (failure to argue against substantive due process 14 violations indicated consent to granting summary judgment); Gudenavichene v. Mortgage Elec. 15 Registration Sys., Case No. 2:12-cv-82 JCM-GWF, 2012 WL 1142868, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 4, 16 2012) (plaintiff’s failure to respond to any of the arguments raised in the motion to dismiss 17 constituted consent to granting the motion). 18 Plaintiff does not respond to Defendants’ substantive arguments that their Motions to 19 Dismiss are dispositive of the entire case, are likely to be granted, and can be decided without 20 additional discovery. Thus, Plaintiff agrees that these arguments have merit and the Motion to Stay 21 may be granted. Id. See also Macias v. Smith’s Food and Drug Center, Case No.: 2:20-cv-01554- 22 JAD-NJK 2020 WL 7439703, at *3 (D. Nev. Dec. 17, 2020) (a plaintiff's failure to respond to 23 arguments constitutes an admission that the arguments have merit).

24 B. A Preliminary Peek At Defendants’ Motions To Dismiss Shows The Motions Are Dispositive, No Discovery Is Needed To Decide Them, And They Are Likely To Be 25 Granted. 26 Generally, a dispositive motion does not warrant a stay of discovery. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, 27 Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). “The party seeking a stay . . . has the burden to show good 1 cause by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the discovery.” Rosenstein v. Clark 2 Cnty. Sch. Dist., Case No. 2:13-cv-1443-JCM-VCF, 2014 WL 2835074, at *3 (D. Nev. June 23, 3 2014), citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under certain circumstances 4 it is an abuse of discretion to deny discovery while a dispositive motion is pending. Tradebay, 278 5 F.R.D. at 602. For this reason, a party seeking a discovery stay carries the “heavy burden” of making 6 a strong showing why the discovery process should be halted. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda 7 Corp., 75 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). 8 When deciding whether to issue a stay, a court must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits 9 of the dispositive motion pending in the case. Buckwalter v. Nevada Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, Case No. 10 2:10-cv-02034-KJD-GWF, 2011 WL 841391, at *1 (D. Nev. Mar. 7, 2011). A court must consider 11 whether the pending motion is potentially dispositive of the entire case, and whether that motion can 12 be decided without additional discovery. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602. Nonetheless, the court has 13 broad discretion when deciding whether to grant a motion to stay discovery. See e.g., Little v. City 14 of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). 15 A preliminary peek at Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss demonstrates that, if granted, they are 16 dispositive of the case. The Green Valley Community Association and Assured Real Estate Motion 17 to Dismiss persuasively argue that these Defendants are not debt collectors as a matter of law and 18 that, therefore, they do not fall under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. ECF No. 66 at 5-7. 19 Defendants also persuasively argue that Plaintiff’s state law claims are invalid. Id. at 8-9. Defendant 20 Yakubik demonstrates his Motion to Dismiss is also likely to be successful. ECF No. 84. In sum, 21 the arguments presented by Defendants appear, to this Court, to be meritorious and substantially 22 likely to be prevail. No discovery is needed to decide the issues as they are matters of law. Thus, 23 Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss meet all elements required to grant a stay of discovery. 24

25 26 27 1 III. Order 2 Accordingly, and based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ 3 Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Motions to Dismiss (ECF No. 107) is GRANTED. 4 5 DATED this 27th day of May, 2022.

7 ___________________________________ 8 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27