Napoleoni v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 3, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00125
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Lissette Napoleoni, Case No. 2:25-cv-00125-RFB-DJA 6 Plaintiff, Consolidated with: 7 v. Case No. 2:25-cv-00127-RFB-DJA 8 and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Case No. 2:25-cv-01241-RFB-DJA 9 Trustee, on behalf of the Holders of the IMPAC Secured Assets Corp. Mortgage Pass- 10 Through Certificates Series 2007-1, Order 11 Defendant.

13 14 This lead case has been consolidated with two others brought by the same Plaintiff against 15 the same Defendant. (ECF Nos. 26 and 58) (orders consolidating cases). After the first 16 consolidation order, but before the second, the Court stayed discovery. (ECF No. 45). Plaintiff 17 then filed two motions to compel in contravention of the stay order. (ECF Nos. 49, 50). 18 Defendant opposes those motions. Recently, Plaintiff’s third case was consolidated with this one. 19 (ECF No. 58). Defendant has moved the Court to clarify whether its order staying discovery also 20 applies to the newly-consolidated case. (ECF No. 61). It does. (ECF No. 58) (explaining that the 21 “actions are consolidated for all purposes”). The Court has already found a stay of discovery 22 pending decision on Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) to be appropriate. (ECF No. 45). 23 That motion to dismiss is still pending and so, a stay of discovery is still appropriate. See 24 Schrader v. Wynn, No. 2:19-cv-02159-JCM-BNW, 2021 WL 4810324 (Oct. 14, 2021). The 25 Court therefore grants Defendant’s motion to stay discovery. It further denies Plaintiff’s motions 26 to compel because Plaintiff filed them in contravention of the stay order and does not provide 27 good reason for the Court to lift the stay of discovery. See Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 1 685 (9th Cir. 1989) (explaining that the district court has wide discretion in controlling 2 discovery). 3 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motions to compel (ECF Nos. 49, 50) 5 are denied without prejudice as premature. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 61) is 7 granted. If this case proceeds after the Court decides Defendant’s motion to dismiss, the parties 8 must file a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order within thirty days of that decision. 9 10 DATED: September 3, 2025 11 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27