The Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Xiyue Yang

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 9, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01757
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4

5 The Standard Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-01757-JAD-NJK

6 Plaintiff(s), Order

7 v. [Docket No. 11]

8 Xiyue Yang,

9 Defendant(s). 10 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of his 11 motion to dismiss. Docket No. 11.1 Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 15. 12 Defendant filed a reply. Docket No. 16. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See 13 Local Rule 78-1. 14 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 15 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 16 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 17 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking a stay of 18 discovery bears the heavy burden of making a strong showing that discovery should be denied. 19 Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). Discovery may 20 be stayed when: (1) there is a pending motion that is potentially dispositive in scope and effect; 21 (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the 22 Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying motion and is convinced that 23 Plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 24 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). 25 The Court is not persuaded that a stay of discovery is warranted as the Court is not 26 convinced that the motion to dismiss will succeed. It bears repeating that the filing of a non- 27

28 1 The motion to dismiss has been briefed. Docket Nos. 6, 9, 10. 1} frivolous dispositive motion, standing alone, is not enough to warrant staying discovery. See, e.g., 2|| Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. Instead, the Court must be “convinced” that the dispositive motion 3] will be granted. See, e.g., id. “That standard is not easily met.” Kor Media, 294 F.R.D. at 583. 4! “[T]here must be no question in the court’s mind that the dispositive motion will prevail, and 5] therefore, discovery is a waste of effort.” Jd. (quoting Trazska v. Int’l Game Tech., 2011 WL 6] 1233298, *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 29, 2011)) (emphasis in original). The Court requires this robust 7|| showing because applying a lower standard would likely result in unnecessary delay in many cases. 8|| (quoting Trazska, 2011 WL 1233298, at *4). The Court is not convinced that the motion to dismiss will be granted.” 10 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to stay discovery. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: March 9, 2026 13 PES Ea Nancy J. Ko 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22) _________ ? Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because 23} the assigned district judge will decide the motion to dismiss and may have a different view of its merits. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of the motion to dismiss is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. Asa result, the undersigned will not provide elaborated discussion of the merits of the underlying motion in this instance. The Court notes that Defendant’s claim-splitting argument is essentially abandoned in reply. Docket No. 10 at 11-12. As to Colorado River abstention, the motion to dismiss recognizes that federal 26] courts have a “virtually unflagging obligation” to exercise jurisdiction that yields in only exceptional circumstances. Docket No. 6 at 7-8. The Court is not convinced that the motion to 27| dismiss will prevail in establishing such exceptional circumstances here. Lastly, the Court is not convinced by the arguments Defendant raised in reply on the motion to dismiss. Cf Zamani v. 28] Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007).