BLANCHARD v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, 2:11-cv-01127-ECR-PAL. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20120611804
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jun. 08, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 08, 2012
Summary: ORDER Mot Stay - Dkt. #57 PEEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge. Before the court is Plaintiff's Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Dkt. #54) and Motion to Stay (Dkt. #55). The court has considered the Motion and Defendant's Response (Dkt. #57). In an Order (Dkt. #53) entered May 24, 2012, the court granted the parties' stipulation to stay submission of the discovery plan and scheduling order pending decision on Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation's second motion to dismiss. Pl
Summary: ORDER Mot Stay - Dkt. #57 PEEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge. Before the court is Plaintiff's Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Dkt. #54) and Motion to Stay (Dkt. #55). The court has considered the Motion and Defendant's Response (Dkt. #57). In an Order (Dkt. #53) entered May 24, 2012, the court granted the parties' stipulation to stay submission of the discovery plan and scheduling order pending decision on Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation's second motion to dismiss. Pla..
More
ORDER
Mot Stay - Dkt. #57
PEEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is Plaintiff's Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Dkt. #54) and Motion to Stay (Dkt. #55). The court has considered the Motion and Defendant's Response (Dkt. #57).
In an Order (Dkt. #53) entered May 24, 2012, the court granted the parties' stipulation to stay submission of the discovery plan and scheduling order pending decision on Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation's second motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's motion to stay argues it is in the interest of judicial economy to stay all further litigation proceedings pending the completion of discovery exchanges between the parties under Plaintiff's proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. However, the proposed discovery plan and scheduling order does not indicate what, if any, discovery Plaintiff proposes to exchange. To the contrary, the proposed discovery plan and scheduling order indicates Plaintiff stipulates to stay proceedings pending the court's decision on his motion to stay. As a stay has already been entered,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Dkt. #54) is NOT APPROVED and is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff's Motion to Stay (Dkt. #55) is DENIED as moot. The parties shall file a proposed stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order no later than 30 days after the district judge decides Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation's second motion to dismiss if any of Plaintiff's remaining claims survive.
Source: Leagle
