Lopez v. D. Westwood, Inc.
This text of Lopez v. D. Westwood, Inc. (Lopez v. D. Westwood, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 Sheri M. Thome Nevada Bar No. 8657 2 Sheri.Thome@wilsonelser.com I-Che Lai 3 Nevada Bar No. 12247 I-Che.Lai@wilsonelser.com 4 WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 6689 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 200 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 Telephone: 702.727.1400 6 Facsimile: 702.727.1401 Attorneys for Defendant 7 D. Westwood, Inc. d/b/a Treasures Gentlemen’s Club
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 ARIANNY CELESTE LOPEZ et al., Case No. 2:19-CV-01842-JCM-BNW 10 Plaintiffs, 11 v. 12 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR D. WESTWOOD, INC. d/b/a TREASURES STAY OF DISCOVERY PENDING 13 GENTLEMEN’S CLUB, DECISION ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 14 Defendants.
15 Defendant D. Westwood, Inc. d/b/a Treasures Gentlemen’s Club, by and through its counsel 16 of record Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, and remaining plaintiffs Brooke 17 Johnson, Irina Voronina, Rosie Roff, and Sara Underwood, by and through their counsel of record, 18 Alverson Taylor & Sanders, Attorneys at Law, hereby stipulate and agree to a temporary stay of this 19 case pending this Court’s decision on the remaining plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend complaint 20 (ECF No. 42). 21 “[A] district court has the inherent power to stay cases to control its docket and promote the 22 efficient use of judicial resources.” U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Antelope Canyon Homeowners Ass'n, 23 No. 2:15-cv-01423-JCM-PAL, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132303, at *5 (D. Nev. Sep. 23, 2016) (citing 24 Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936)). With that inherent authority and “wide 25 discretion in controlling discovery,” this Court in other cases has “stay[ed] … discovery and other 26 proceedings to accomplish the inexpensive determination of the case,” which is the objective of Fed. 27 R. Civ. P. 1. E.g., Dennis v. Mission Support & Test Servs., No. 2:20-cv-01032-JCM-BNW, 2020 1 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 252918, at *3-4 (D. Nev. Aug. 20, 2020) (internal citations omitted). 2 Here, the requested stay arises from the parties’ need to avoid the cost and effort of 3 significant discovery if this Court allows the remaining plaintiffs to file an amended complaint with 4 the Lanham Act false endorsement claims. Such claims requires “costly consumer surveys” to assess 5 the likelihood of confusion, which is an element of the false endorsement claims. See Honeywell 6 Int'l, Inc. v. ICM Controls Corp., 45 F. Supp. 3d 969, 986 (D. Minn. 2014); Merck Eprova AG v. 7 BrookStone Pharm., LLC, 920 F. Supp. 2d 404, 422-23 (S.D.N.Y. 2013); Thermal Design, Inc. v. 8 Guardian Bldg. Prods., No. 08-C-828, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164151, at *2-3 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 16, 9 2012). Such survey evidence would be unnecessary if this Court denies the motion for leave to 10 amend. There is therefore a potential savings of substantial litigation costs and resources that could 11 be avoided, depending on the outcome of the motion for leave to amend. Rather than proceed with 12 potentially needless discovery, the parties both agree it is in their collective interests to stay 13 discovery until the resolution of the pending motion for leave to amend. 14 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 15 Dated: September 9, 2021 Dated: September 9, 2021
16 ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 17
18 /s/David M. Sexton /s/I-Che Lai Kurt B. Bonds Sheri M. Thome 19 Nevada Bar No. 6228 Nevada Bar No. 8657 David M. Sexton I-Che Lai 20 Nevada Bar No. 14951 Nevada Bar No. 12247 6608 Grand Montecito Pkwy. #200 6689 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 200 21 Las Vegas, NV 89149 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendant D. Westwood, Inc. 22 d/b/a Treasures Gentlemen’s Club
27 1 ORDER 2 Based upon the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, discovery is stayed until 3 |) this Court enters an order lifting the stay. The parties must file an updated stipulated discovery plan 4 || and scheduling order within 14 days of this Court’s ruling on the motion for leave to amend (ECF 5 || No. 42). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED: 7 g xo ~ Le WEEN 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10 DATED: SePtember 10, 2021 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Lopez v. D. Westwood, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-d-westwood-inc-nvd-2021.