ORDER

(Docket Nos. 27, 28)

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court are Defendant Credit One Bank, N.A.'s motion for stay of discovery and motion for stay of action. Docket Nos. 27, 28. The Court has considered the motions, as well as Plaintiff's responses and Defendant's replies. Docket Nos. 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34. The Court finds this motion properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-1.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action on November 9, 2016, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices statute. Docket No. 1. On January 6, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration. Docket No. 20. Defendant submits that, as its customer, "Plaintiff gave his express consent to arbitrate any and all disputes with Credit One," and that therefore "Credit One is entitled to compel arbitration." Id. at 2. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant is not entitled to compel arbitration. See, e.g., Docket No. 22. Defendant now asks the Court to stay this case or, to stay discovery, pending resolution of its motion to compel arbitration. Docket Nos. 27, 28.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Stay Action

Courts have inherent power to stay the cases before them as a matter of controlling their own dockets and calendars. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936).1 This power to stay is "incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes of action on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Id. at 254. The movant bears the burden of showing that a stay is warranted. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997).

The Ninth Circuit has outlined various factors a court should consider in exercising its discretion:

Lockyer v. Mirant, 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)).

Defendant submits that because this case is neither fact- nor witness-intensive, no harm will result from a stay. Docket No. 28 at 5. Defendant submits that, absent a stay, it will suffer harm because it "will be burdened by the risk of engaging in motion practice and discovery proceedings that may be rendered useless if this Court grants [its] motion to compel arbitration." Id. at 6. Defendant also contends that granting a stay will conserve the Court's resources, and will have no negative impact on the public or any other persons outside this litigation. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff responds that, inter alia, Defendant's motion does not cite the proper authority to support its request to stay the action. Docket No. 32 at 9. Defendant replies that, inter alia, the relevant authority supports imposition of a stay. See Docket No. 33 at 3-7.

The Court finds that a stay of the instant action is warranted. First, any potential damage that will result from a stay is minimal. The only risk involved is a slight delay in the proceedings in the event the Court does not grant Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Second, if Defendant is forced to move forward while the motion to compel arbitration is under consideration, it will have to engage in expensive discovery and, potentially, motion practice, that will be rendered useless if the Court grants its motion to compel arbitration. Finally, granting a stay will streamline and simplify the process by allowing the Court to first resolve the threshold issue of whether Defendant may compel arbitration.

B. Motion to Stay Discovery

Defendant has also filed a motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 27. As the Court has granted Defendant's motion, Defendant's motion to stay discovery is now moot.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's motion for stay of action. Docket No. 28. The Court further DENIES Defendant's motion to stay discovery, Docket No. 27, as moot. The parties shall file a request to lift the stay within 14 days of the resolution of Defendant's motion to compel arbitration, in the event it is not granted in full.

IT IS SO ORDERED.