JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS UNTIL A DECISION IS RENDERED ON [DKT 54] THE RADWAN DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO [DKT 51] THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CAM FERENBACH, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff DriveTime Automotive, Inc. ("DirveTime"), by and through its counsel, the law firm of Dickinson Wright PLLC; Defendant Marlon DeGuzman ("DeGuzman"), by and through his counsel, the law firm of Mark R. Smith, P.C.; and Defendants Shaker Radwan, K & S Auto Sales, Inc., Texas Fine Cars, Inc., Car Show Motors, Inc., and Demetri Jony (collectively the "Radwan Defendants"), by and through their counsel, the law firm of Garcia-Mendoza & Snavely, pursuant to Local Rule 7-1, hereby stipulate and agree that this matter should be stayed pending resolution of [Dkt. 54] The Radwan Defendants' Objection to [Dkt. 51] The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (the "Objection").

There is good cause for this stipulation. On February 6, 2015, DriveTime filed [Dkt 39] Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not be Held in Contempt of the Court's Order (the "OSC Motion"). On February 25, 2015, the Radwan Defendants submitted an opposition the OSC Motion [Dkt. 41]. DriveTime filed its Reply in support of the OSC Motion on March 5, 2105 [Dkt. 42] and Judge Ferenbach held a heairng on Apirl 2, 2015. Judge Ferenbach continued the hearing to Apirl 13, 2015 and then issued his Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 51] on April 30, 2015, recommending that the Radwan Defendants' Answers be stircken and defaults be entered against them. The Radwan Defendants filed their Objection [Dkt. 54] on May 18, 2015 and DriveTime filed its Response to the Objection [Dkt. 61] on June 4, 2015. To date, the Court has not ruled upon Judge Ferenbach's Report and Recommendation.

The discovery cutoff date is July 21, 2015 and the dispositive motion deadline is August 28, 2015. Without a ruling on the Radwan Defendants' pending Objection, the parties will be unable to discern whether further discovery or dispositive motions are necessary or even appropriate. If the Objection is denied, a default will be entered against the Radwan Defendants and no further discovery will be necessary with respect to the Radwan Defendants. In contrast, if the Objection is granted, further discovery will be necessary and the parties would be prejudiced by having had the discovery period close. Thus, this stay is not requested for any improper purpose or delay, but rather for good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.