Napoleoni v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

D. Nevada

Napoleoni v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided September 3, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-00125·Unknown

Opinion

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

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

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

Napoleoni v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Napoleoni v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Napoleoni v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related