SmarterSwipe, Inc. v. Navarrete

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 29, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00299
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 SmarterSwipe, Inc., 4 2:24-cv-00299-CDS-MDC Plaintiff(s), 5 vs. Order 6 Carlos Navarrete, 7 Defendant(s). 8 Pending before the Court is defendant Gonzalez’s Emergency Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 9 18). Defendant Gonzalez seeks a stay of discovery pending his Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 3). The Court 10 grants a partial stay of discovery. 11 DISCUSSION 12 Defendant Gonzales filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 3) under Rule 12(b)(2), lack of personal 13 jurisdiction. Defendant Gonzalez seeks a stay of discovery until the issue of personal jurisdiction is 14 decided. ECF No. 18. Under the pragmatic approach, the Court looks to whether (1) the pending 15 dispositive motion can be decided without further discovery and (2) whether good cause exists to stay 16 discovery. Schrader v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198974, at *2-4 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 17 2021). Plaintiff does not request any discovery to respond to defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or dispute 18 that the Motion to Dismiss may be decided without discovery. This weighs in favor of staying discovery. 19 Because personal jurisdiction is being challenged, the Court also finds that good cause exists to stay 20 discovery as to defendant Gonzalez. See Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co. Ltd., 2013 U.S. Dist. 21 LEXIS 156928, at *5 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013) (“Generally speaking, ‘a pending motion challenging 22 [personal] jurisdiction strongly favors a stay, or at minimum, limitations on discovery until the question 23 of jurisdiction is resolved.”). 24 25 1 The Court notes that while the remaining defendants do not oppose the stay, they do not join in 2 || the motion. ECF No. 18 at 6. The Court also notes that the remaining defendants do not challenge personal 3 || jurisdiction, but instead they filed a countermotion. ECF No. 15. The Court has personal jurisdiction over 4 ||the remaining defendants. Therefore, the Court finds that a stay of discovery as to the remaining 5 || defendants is not warranted. See Hologram USA, Inc. v. Cirque Du Soleil My Call, LLC, No. 2:14-CV- 6 ||0916-RFB-NJK, 2014 WL 12792490, at *4 (D. Nev. Nov. 24, 2014) (stay only applies to moving 7 || defendant) (citing White v. American Tobacco Co., 125 F.R.D. 508, 509 (D. Nev. 1989) (denying motion 8 || to stay discovery against one defendant where motion to dismiss was filed by another defendant)). 9 10 ACCORDINGLY, 11 IT IS ORDERED that: 12 1. The Emergency Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED. 13 2. Discovery is stayed only as to defendant Gonzalez. Discovery will proceed normally as to the 14 remaining defendants. 15 DATED this 29th day of March 2024. / “pp DO 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Y 7 SY 17 J J f 18 fo. Nao Couvillier I] 19 United States strate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25