Verloncia Chabeaun Carr v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al.
This text of Verloncia Chabeaun Carr v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al. (Verloncia Chabeaun Carr v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7
8 VERLONCIA CHABEAUN CARR, Case No. 2:25-cv-01701-GMN-NJK 9 Plaintiff, Order 10 v. [Docket No. 29] 11 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant Circus Circus LV, LLC’s motion to stay discovery 14 pending resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Docket No. 29.1 Plaintiff filed a response. 15 Docket No. 32. The Court does not require a reply or a hearing. LR 78-1. 16 Plaintiff submits that the instant motion is procedurally unnecessary because the parties 17 have already stipulated to stay discovery as to Defendant Circus Circus LV, LLC. See Docket No. 18 32 at 2. Plaintiff is incorrect. 19 Having considered the governing standards, Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 20 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013), the Court finds that a stay of discovery as to Defendant Circus Circus is 21 warranted.2 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 29. If 22 resolution of the motion to dismiss does not result in termination of this case against Defendant 23 24 1 The motion to dismiss is fully briefed. Docket Nos. 22, 24, 26. 25 2 Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because 26 the assigned district judge will decide the underlying motion and may have a different view of the merits. See Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). The undersigned’s 27 “preliminary peek” at the merits of the motion for judgment on the pleadings is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. The undersigned carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the 28 underlying motion and related briefing, but will not provide discussion of the merits herein. 1}, Circus Circus, Plaintiff and Defendant Circus Circus must comply with the scheduling order issued 2|| today by the Court. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: November 25, 2025 Ae ,
Nancy J. Koppe 6 United States Magistrate Judge
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Verloncia Chabeaun Carr v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/verloncia-chabeaun-carr-v-las-vegas-metropolitan-police-department-et-al-nvd-2025.