Verna Longmore v. Homexpress Mortgage Corporation; Essex Mortgage, Inc.; Fay Servicing, LLC; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Doe Defendants 1-50, inclusive

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01332
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 VERNA LONGMORE, Case No. 2:25-cv-01332-RFB-EJY

5 Plaintiff,

6 v. ORDER

7 HOMEXPRESS MORTGAGE CORPORATION; ESSEX MORTGAGE, 8 INC.; FAY SERVICING, LLC; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, 9 INC.; DOE DEFENDANTS 1-50, inclusive,

10 Defendants.

11 12 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 31), which 13 Plaintiff opposes (ECF No. 35). Also pending is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Rule 26(f) 14 Conference, to Set Deadlines for a Joint Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order, and for Related Relief. 15 ECF No. 28. Although not before the undersigned, germane to consideration of the Motion to Stay 16 and Motion to Compel are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) and Plaintiff’s Motion to 17 Remand (ECF No. 9). 18 The Court has inherent power to manage proceedings by ordering a stay of discovery. Bacon 19 v. Reyes, Case No. 2:12-cv-01222-JCM, 2013 WL 5522263, at *5 (D. Nev. Oct. 3, 2013). 20 Nonetheless, ordinarily, a dispositive motion does not warrant a stay of discovery. Twin City Fire 21 Insurance v. Employers of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989); Turner Broadcasting 22 System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The moving party carries the 23 heavy burden of making a strong showing of why discovery should be denied. Kor Media Group, 24 LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). Courts have broad discretionary power to 25 control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). When deciding 26 whether to grant a stay of discovery, the Court is guided by the objectives of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 1 that 27 ensures a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Kor Media Group, 294 1 potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional 2 discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a ‘preliminary peek’ at the merits of the potentially dispositive 3 motion and is convinced the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief.” Id. 4 Here, the Court finds the competing Motions to Dismiss and to Remand are potentially 5 dispositive of this entire matter. The Court further finds these Motions can be decided without 6 additional discovery. A preliminary peek reveals either or both Motions may result no claims 7 proceeding in the federal court. Plaintiff who seeks to compel the commencement of discovery also 8 argues remand is appropriate because this matter was “improperly removed to federal court” under 9 diversity jurisdiction principles. ECF No. 9 at 1. Plaintiff says there is a lack of complete diversity 10 and the removal was otherwise procedurally defective. Id. at 1, 2, 4. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 11 argues Plaintiff’s legal theory (securitization) is legally implausible (ECF No. 6 at 6–7), which is an 12 argument the Court finds compelling and, upon a preliminary peek, likely to lead to dismissal. 13 Under the circumstances presented, the Court finds the merits of Defendants’ securitization 14 argument are likely dispositive of this dispute and, under the totality of the pending Motions, 15 proceeding with discovery will not serve the overarching policy established by Rule 1 of the Federal 16 Rules of Civil Procedure. Kor Media Group, 294 F.R.D. at 581. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF 18 No. 31) is GRANTED. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference, to 20 Set Deadlines for a Joint Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order, and for Related Relief (ECF No. 28) is 21 DENIED. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if this case is not fully resolved such that it no longer 23 proceeds in federal court following decisions on the Motion to Dismiss and or Motion to Remand, 24 the parties must submit a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order no later than thirty (30) days 25 after the Court issues such orders. 26 Dated this 14th day of October, 2025.