CAMPELL v. DEAN MARTIN DR-LAS VEGAS, LLC, 2:15-cv-00452-GMN-NJK. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20150721a97
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jul. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 20, 2015
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 22) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' stipulated discovery plan (Docket No. 22), which is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Within the proposed discovery plan, the parties state that they should have "180 days [for discovery], measured from the date on which the Court issues its Order regarding subject matter jurisdiction." Docket No. 22, at 2. The parties represent that they have not begun discovery because the Court has not res
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 22) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' stipulated discovery plan (Docket No. 22), which is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Within the proposed discovery plan, the parties state that they should have "180 days [for discovery], measured from the date on which the Court issues its Order regarding subject matter jurisdiction." Docket No. 22, at 2. The parties represent that they have not begun discovery because the Court has not reso..
More
ORDER (Docket No. 22)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is the parties' stipulated discovery plan (Docket No. 22), which is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Within the proposed discovery plan, the parties state that they should have "180 days [for discovery], measured from the date on which the Court issues its Order regarding subject matter jurisdiction." Docket No. 22, at 2. The parties represent that they have not begun discovery because the Court has not resolved the subject matter jurisdiction issue that was raised in a March 13, 2015, order to show cause. Id., at 1. The parties are essentially requesting a stay of discovery, pending the resolution of the Court's decision regarding subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court has considered the request in light of the goals of Rule 1 to "secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive" determination of all cases. For good cause shown, discovery is STAYED pending resolution of the Court's decision regarding subject matter jurisdiction. In the event that the Court's decision regarding subject matter jurisdiction does not result in the case being remanded to state court, the parties shall file a joint discovery plan within seven days of the issuance of the order regarding subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
