Torliatt v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 13, 2020
• Docket: 3:19-cv-04303
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LAWRENCE TORLIATT, Case No. 19-cv-04303-WHO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY 9 v. DISCOVERY; GRANTING MOTION TO SET CASE MANAGEMENT 10 OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, CONFERENCE 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. Nos. 37, 38

12 13 Defendants PHH Mortgage Corporation and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC seek a stay of 14 discovery until their pending motion to dismiss is resolved. See Dkt. No. 37. Plaintiff Lawrence 15 Torliatt moves to set a Case Management Conference in this action given that one has not been set 16 since stay was lifted following mediation. See Dkt. No. 38.1 17 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for stays of discovery simply because 18 a motion to dismiss is pending. Novelposter v. Javitch Canfield Grp., No. 13-CV-05186-WHO, 19 2014 WL 12618174, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2014) (finding no good cause for staying discovery 20 pending resolution of a motion to dismiss); Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 21 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989) (“a pending Motion to Dismiss is not ordinarily a situation 22 that in and of itself would warrant a stay of discovery”). Although “[a] district court has broad 23 discretion to stay discovery pending the disposition of a dispositive motion,” courts have not 24 looked favorably upon granting stays of discovery in these circumstances. Hall v. Tilton, No. 07- 25 cv-3233-RMW, 2010 WL 539679, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2010); see In re Valence Tech. Sec. 26 1 The Case Management Conference set for November 5, 2019 was vacated when I granted 27 parties’ joint motion to stay all proceedings pending mediation. Dkt. No. 29. Mediation was 1 Litig., No. 94-cv-1542-SC, 1994 WL 758688, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 1994). The party seeking 2 || astay must make a “strong showing” of “good cause” for its request. Blankenship v. Hearst 3 Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975) (emphasis added); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). 4 In support of their motion to stay, defendants simply reassert arguments from their motion 5 || to dismiss and contend that there is a strong likelihood that their motion will be dispositive. This 6 || is not sufficient good cause to stay discovery pending resolution of their motion to dismiss. 7 Defendants’ motion to stay discovery is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion to set a Case 8 || Management Conference is GRANTED. A Case Management Conference is set for April 15, 9 || 2020, along with the hearing on defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. A joint case management 10 statement should be filed by April 8, 2020 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 13 Dated: March 13, 2020

15 mH. Orrick = 16 United States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28