Rayshawn Jenkins, et al. v. TTEC Services Corporation, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00958
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 Rayshawn Jenkins, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00958-GMN-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order 8 v. [Docket No. 23] 9 TTEC Services Corporation, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of 12 their motion to compel arbitration. Docket No. 23; see also Docket No. 13 (motion to compel 13 arbitration). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 27. Defendants filed a reply. 14 Docket No. 29. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 15 A stay pending resolution of a motion to compel arbitration is warranted when it is 16 potentially dispositive, it can be decided without discovery, and there is a reasonable possibility 17 or probability that the district judge will compel arbitration. Arik v. Meyers, 2020 WL 515843, at 18 *1-2 (D. Nev. Jan. 31, 2020) (citing Shaughnessy v. Credit Acceptance Corp. of Nev., 2007 WL 19 9728688, at *2-3 (D. Nev. Nov. 28, 2007)). Courts frequently stay discovery pending resolution 20 of a motion to compel arbitration. See, e.g., Mahamedi IP Law, LLP v. Paradice & Li, LLP, 2017 21 WL 2727874, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) (collecting cases). 22 The circumstances here justify a stay of discovery. First, the motion to compel arbitration 23 is potentially dispositive. See Arik, 2020 WL 515843, at *2. Second, although Plaintiffs also argue 24 now that discovery is needed for resolution of the motion to compel arbitration, Docket No. 27, 25 that is also an issue they raise in opposing the motion to compel arbitration itself, see Docket No. 26 17 at 8-9 n.2, 16. Hence, whether discovery will be needed is an issue that will be decided in 27 conjunction with the motion to compel, and does not warrant denial of the motion to stay discovery. 28 Cf. Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., 2013 WL 12321307, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 15, 2013). 1} Third and finally, the Court finds that there is a reasonable possibility or probability that the district 2|| judge will compel arbitration.! 3 Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. In the event the motion to 4! compel arbitration is not granted, an amended joint proposed scheduling order must be filed within 14 days of resolution of the motion to compel arbitration. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: October 7, 2025

Nancy J. K 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ——__________ ' Conducting the preliminary peek can put a magistrate judge in an awkward position and 26] is not intended to prejudice the outcome of the underlying motion. See Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). As such, the Court will not provide herein discussion 27|| of the merits of the motion to compel arbitration. 28