ORDER

C.W. HOFFMAN, JR., Magistrate Judge.

Presently before the court is defendants Quality Loan Service Corporation and McCarthy & Holthus, LLP's Motion to Enforce Agreement, or in the Alternative, Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 31), filed on March 20, 2018. Pro se defendant Richey Garrison Guidi filed a response (ECF No. 32) on April 6, 2018. Defendants filed a reply (ECF No. 33) on April 13, 2018.

At a recent discovery scheduling conference in this case, the parties stipulated in open court to stay discovery pending the court's order on the defendants' pending motion to dismiss. (Mins. of Proceedings (ECF No. 30).) The court granted the parties' stipulation in open court, but asked the parties to file a written stipulation memorializing the agreement. (Id.) The court further ordered that if the motion to dismiss is denied, the parties must meet and confer and file a proposed discovery plan within 15 days of the order on the motion to dismiss. (Id.)

Defendants now move to enforce the stipulation and order, arguing that Guidi refused to sign the proposed written stipulation that defendants prepared following the hearing. Guidi responds that defendants are misusing the stipulation to create an opportunity to amend the complaint, that defendants filed a breach and election to sell the underlying property while simultaneously asking for a stay, and that he was unaware of new documents that had been filed with the county recorder when he appeared for the discovery scheduling conference. Guidi also makes various arguments regarding the merits of his claims against defendants. Defendants reply that Guidi is the only party that has filed a complaint and that a stay of discovery would not result in an amendment of the pleadings. Defendants also reiterate that a stay is appropriate for the purpose of conserving the parties' resources pending a decision on the motion to dismiss.

Having read and considered the parties' arguments, and for the reasons stated in defendants' motion, the court in its discretion will enforce the parties' in-court stipulation to stay discovery pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss. See Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (stating that courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery, including the decision to stay discovery).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants Quality Loan Service Corporation and McCarthy & Holthus, LLP's Motion to Enforce Agreement, or in the Alternative, Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery is stayed pending the court's order on defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the motion to dismiss is denied, the parties must meet and confer and file a proposed discovery plan within 15 days from the date of the court's order on the motion to dismiss.