Reflex Media, Inc. v. RichMeetBeautiful Holding LTD.

Opinion

Mark L. Smith (#14762) Jacob L. Fonnesbeck (#11961) 6871 Eastern Avenue., Suite 101 Las Vegas, NV 89119 Telephone: (725) 666-8700 Facsimile: (725) 666-8710 msmith@smithwashburn.com jfonnesbeck@smithwashburn.com Attorneys for Reflex Media, Inc. and Clover8 Investments PTE. LTD. REFLEX MEDIA INC., a Nevada Case No. 2:18-cv-01476-APG-EJY Corporation, et al., JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] Plaintiffs, ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING THE COURT’S DECISION ON v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS RICHMEETBEAUTIFUL HOLDING (First Request) LTD., a Maltese corporation d/b/a RichMeetBeautiful.com, et al., Defendants. Plaintiffs Reflex Media, Inc. (“Reflex”) and Clover8 Investments PTE. LTD. (“Clover8,” and together with Reflex, “RMI”), and Defendants RichMeetBeautiful Holding LTD., d/b/a RichMeetBeautiful.com (“RichMeetBeautiful”); Digisec Media Limited (“Digisec”), and Sigurd Vedal’s (Vedal, and together with RichMeetBeautiful and Digisec, the “RMB Defendants”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby respectfully stipulate to stay all discovery in this action pending the Court’s decision on the RMB Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (ECF No. 37), as set forth below: WHEREAS, on June 20, 2019, the RMB Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (ECF No. 37) (“Motion to Dismiss”), which has not yet been decided or set for hearing by this Court. WHEREAS the pending Motion to Dismiss includes issues of personal jurisdiction that, once resolved, could require serial rather than simultaneous discovery exchanges on all parties. In the context of a pending motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, “courts are more inclined to stay discovery because it presents a critical preliminary question.” Hologram USA, Inc. v. Pulse Evolution Corp., No. 2:14-CV-00772-GMN, 2015 WL 1600768, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 8, 2015) (quotations and citations omitted). WHEREAS to avoid potentially inefficient discovery, the parties have met and conferred and agree that a stay of discovery pending the Court’s decision on RMB Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint is appropriate and will conserve Judicial and party resources. Once the Motion to Dismiss is resolved, the parties will meet and confer and submit a Joint Proposed Discovery Plan. WHEREAS this is the first stipulation to stay discovery. THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING ORDER: All discovery in this action shall be stayed pending the Court’s decision on the RMB Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (ECF No. 37). Once the Motion to Dismiss is resolved, the parties will meet and confer and submit a Joint Proposed Discovery Plan. Respectfully submitted, DATED: March 6, 2020 SMITH WASHBURN, LLP /s/ Mark L. Smith Mark L. Smith 6871 Eastern Avenue., Suite 101 Las Vegas, NV 89119 Telephone: (725) 666-8701 Facsimile: (725) 666-8710 msmith@smithwashburn.com /// /// DATED: March 6, 2020 LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP /s/ Meng Zhong Michael J. McCue Meng Zhong 3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Suite 600 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 949-8200 mmccue@lrrc.com mzhong@lrrc.com Attorneys for Defendants Richmeetbeautiful Holding Ltd. Dba RichMeetBeautiful.com, Digisec Media Limited, and Sigurd Vedal IT IS SO ORDERED. ___________________________________ DATED: March 9, 2020