Filed: Dec. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 08, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION TO STAY LITIGATION CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . Guido L. Peralta ("Peralta") and CACH, LLC ("CACH") jointly request the Court to enter a stay of this litigation pending the completion of related litigation currently pending between the two parties in the Eighth Judicial District Court, State of Nevada, (Case A-16-733664-C). The state court case is currently in court supervised arbitration with an arbitration scheduled for February 22, 2017. The parties ask the Court to s
Summary: STIPULATION TO STAY LITIGATION CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . Guido L. Peralta ("Peralta") and CACH, LLC ("CACH") jointly request the Court to enter a stay of this litigation pending the completion of related litigation currently pending between the two parties in the Eighth Judicial District Court, State of Nevada, (Case A-16-733664-C). The state court case is currently in court supervised arbitration with an arbitration scheduled for February 22, 2017. The parties ask the Court to st..
More
STIPULATION TO STAY LITIGATION
CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Guido L. Peralta ("Peralta") and CACH, LLC ("CACH") jointly request the Court to enter a stay of this litigation pending the completion of related litigation currently pending between the two parties in the Eighth Judicial District Court, State of Nevada, (Case A-16-733664-C). The state court case is currently in court supervised arbitration with an arbitration scheduled for February 22, 2017. The parties ask the Court to stay this matter until March 1, 2017, as the state court arbitration may resolve the issues in this case.
BACKGROUND
A dispute exists between Plaintiff and Defendant over the existence of, and collection of a debt. CACH, LLC filed a lawsuit to collect the debt in Nevada State Court on March 18, 2016 (Case A-16-733664-C). Plaintiff filed this lawsuit contesting the collection of the debt in this Court on July 22, 2016 (Case 16-cv-01745). The Parties agree that a brief stay of this case, until March 1, 2017, will benefit the Parties and preserve judicial resources. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
DISCUSSION
Federal District Courts have Broad Discretion to Stay Discovery During the Pendency of a Dispositive Motion
It is well-established that district courts have broad discretion to control the nature and the timing of discovery. Salida v. United States Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500 (D. Nev. 2013). This power arises not only from the permissive language contained with Rule 26(c)(1), but also from the "prime directive" itself, which orders district courts to apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in such as a way as to "secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. See Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 1; Pettit v. Pulte Mortg., LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131324, 12, 2011 WL 5546422 (D. Nev. Nov. 14, 2011).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the parties ask the Court to stay this federal court action until March 1, 2017. The Parties expect that the underlying state court action will be instrumental in the settlement of the federal claims in the federal lawsuit. Therefore, it is HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the Parties as follows:
(1) This case should be stayed until March 1, 2017;
(2) The discovery requests currently pending will be stayed; and
(3) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF NO. 10, is withdrawn without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
