Moore v. Artic Cat Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 14, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00047
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 || Carol P. Michel, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11420 2 || cmichel@wwhgd.com Daniela LaBounty, Esq. 3 || Nevada Bar No. 13169 dlabounty @ wwhgd.com 4 || WEINBERG, WHEELER, HUDGINS, GUNN & DIAL, LLC 5 || 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 400 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 6 || Telephone: (702) 938-3838 7 Facsimile: (702) 938-3864 Attorneys for Defendant 8 || Arctic Cat Inc. erroneously named as 9 Artic Cat, Inc.

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT = DISTRICT OF NEVADA oe 6d | ERIK E. MOORE, an Individual Case No.: 2:23-cv-00047-RFB-VCF > = Plaintiff, (Removed from the District Court of Clark oO 13 County, Nevada, Case No. A-22-859224-C, VS. Dept. 16) uz 414 O ARTIC CAT, INC., a Minnesota Corporation STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY 15 doing business in Nevada; DOES I through DISCOVERY > = X; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIESI through 16 || XX inclusive, (First Request) 17 Defendants. 18 19 Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1, Plaintiff ERIK E. MOORE (“Plaintiff”) by and through his 20 || attorneys of record, CHRISTIANSEN TRIAL LAWYERS, and Defendant Arctic Cat Inc., erroneously named as Artic Cat, Inc., (“Defendant”), by and through its attorneys of record WEINBERG, 22 || WHEELER, HUDGINS, GUNN & DIAL, LLC, hereby request that the Court stay discovery and the 23 || filing of the Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by February 22, 2023, pending the Court’s 24 || ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5). The parties stipulate and agree as 25 || follows: 26 1. On September 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Complaint alleging two causes of 27 | action for (1) Strict Liability and (2) Intentional Misrepresentation against Defendant. See ECF

No. 1, Exhibit A. Defendant was served with the Summons and Complaint on December 19, 2 || 2022. Id. 3 2. On January 9, 2023, Defendant removed the matter to Federal Court. □□□ 4 3, On January 13, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint 5 || pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(2) and FRCP 12(b)(6). ECF No. 5. Defendant’s Motion seeks dismissal || arguing that Plaintiff’s claim for strict liability is time barred, Plaintiff’s claim for intentional || misrepresentation does not meet the pleading standard required by FRCP 9(b), and that this 8 || Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Jd. If granted in its entirety, the 9 || Motion would dispose of Plaintiff’s case in its entirety. z 10 4. Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s Motion on January 31, 2023. ECF No. 11] 7. Defendant filed its Reply thereto on February 7, 2023. ECF No. 8. 12 5. Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See Wilmington Sav. 13 || Fund Soc'y FSB v. El, 2019 WL 6310718, at *1 (D. Nev. Nov. 25, 2019) (citing Little v. City of us 14]| Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). “In deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, the = 15} Court is guided by the objectives of Rule 1 to ensure a just, speedy, and inexpensive = determination of every action.” Jd. Preliminary issues such as jurisdiction, venue, or immunity 17) are common situations that may justify a stay. Id. (citing Twin City Fire Ins. v. Employers Ins. of 18 || Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989); see also Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto Indus. Col., 2013 WL 5947138, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 13, 2013) (granting stay based on alleged lack of personal jurisdiction); Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 2013) (granting stay based in part on alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction). 22 || This Court applies a three-part test to determine whether a stay is appropriate pending resolution 23 || of a dispositive motion: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially 24 || dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a 25 || “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion to evaluate the likelihood 26] of dismissal. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y FSB, 2019 WL 6310718, at *1 (citing Kor Media 27 || Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013)).

1 6. Here, the parties stipulate and agree that Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss || Plaintiff's Complaint, is potentially dispositive and may be decided without additional discovery. 3 || Additionally, Defendant’s Motion addresses this court’s jurisdiction over Defendant, which is a || scenario where a stay may warranted. See Twin City Fire Ins. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 124 5 || F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989). 6 7. Based on the foregoing, the parties stipulate and agree that discovery shall be □□ stayed pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss, that the Rule 26(f) conference shall be held 8 || within ten (10) days of this Court’s ruling on these motions, and that the parties shall submit their || discovery plan pursuant to Rule 26 and LR 16-1within fourteen (14) days of the Rule 26(f) < conference. 11 || DATED this 10th day of February, 2023. DATED this 10th day of February, 2023. wz wZ 12 = 3 /s/ Daniela LaBoun /s/ Whitney J. Barrett (with permission) (9 Carol P. Michel, Esq. Peter S. Christiansen, Esq. a WEINBERG, WHEELER, HUDGINS, Kendelee L. Works, Esq ze GUNN & DIAL, LLC er fa 15 Whitney J. Barrett, Esq. wi > 6385 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 400 : . =I Las Veeas. NV 89118 Keely P. Chippoletti, Esq. 16 eas, CHRISTIANSEN TRIAL LAWYERS Attorneys for Defendant th . 17 || Arctic Cat Inc. erroneously named as 710 S. 7" Street, Suite B Artic Cat, Inc. Las Vegas, NV 89101 18 Attorneys for Plaintiff 19 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that an in-person status 20 an in-p hearing is scheduled for IT IS SO ORDERED. 211 10:00 AM, September 7, 2023. If the motion to [OBO PCGEE 73 dismiss is still pending, the Cam Ferenbach parties may stipulate to United States Magistrate Judge 24 ntinue the status hearing. _14- continue the status hearing paTED 2714-2023 25 26 27

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am an employee of Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, 4 LLC, and that on the 10th day of February, 2023, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY by e-service, in accordance with the Electronic Filing Procedures of the United States District Court, to the following: 8 Peter S. Christiansen, Esq. pete @christiansenlaw.com R. Todd Terry, Esq. tterry @christiansenlaw.com = 10 Kendelee L. Works, Esq. a kworks @christiansenlaw.com x 11 Whitney J. Barrett, Esq. 2 wharrett @ christiansenlaw.com Keely P. Chippoletti, Esq. = keely@christiansenlaw.com CHRISTIANSEN TRIAL LAWYERS i Z 7108.7" Street, Suite B eo Las Vegas, NV 89101 4a 15 (702) 240-7979 = 1 16 (866) 412-6992 FAX Attorneys for Plaintiff

18 /s/ Kelly L. Pierce An employee of WEINBERG, WHEELER, HUDGINS 19 GUNN & DIAL, LLC 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27