Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

FORSYTHE v. RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY, 2:16-CV-01867-GMN-VCF. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20161216b70 Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 13, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 13, 2016
Summary: STIPULATED JOINT MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY (Filed Concurrently with [Proposed] Order) CAM FERENBACH , District Judge . Jana Forsythe and Forsythe Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Arlan Melendez, Steve Moran, Steve Stout, and Vicky Oldenburg (collectively, "RSIC Defendants"), and Wood-Rodgers, Inc. and Mark Cendagorta (collectively, "WRI Defendants") for the reasons below, jointly submit this motion requesting stay of discovery and Rule
More

STIPULATED JOINT MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY

(Filed Concurrently with [Proposed] Order)

Jana Forsythe and Forsythe Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Arlan Melendez, Steve Moran, Steve Stout, and Vicky Oldenburg (collectively, "RSIC Defendants"), and Wood-Rodgers, Inc. and Mark Cendagorta (collectively, "WRI Defendants") for the reasons below, jointly submit this motion requesting stay of discovery and Rule 16 and Rule 26 obligations during the pendency of Defendants' motions to dismiss.

By this action, Plaintiffs allege Defendants committed acts under color of law that deprived Plaintiffs of rights secured under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The RSIC Defendants filed a motion to dismiss [ECF No. 17] challenging the Court's subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6), arguing they are protected by tribal sovereign immunity and that they did not act under color of state law. Plaintiffs responded to the RSIC Defendants' motion [ECF No. 24]. The WRI Defendants filed a motion to dismiss [ECF No. 19] also challenging the Court's subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6), arguing they are protected by tribal sovereign immunity and that they did not act under color of state law. Plaintiffs responded to the WRI Defendants' motion [ECF No. 25].

On November 14, 2016, the Court directed the parties to confer and then file on or before December 29, 2016, their Scheduling Order/Discovery Plan. At this time, the RSIC and WRI Defendants believe discovery should be stayed during the pendency of their challenges to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. While Plaintiffs will oppose those challenges, because the motions deal strictly with the allegations of the amended complaint, and in an effort to maintain an orderly, efficient and less costly resolution to this dispute, the parties have agreed, absent court order or further agreement of the parties, to stay discovery until such time as the Court rules on the two pending motions.

The parties hereby stipulate and agree, subject to the approval of the Court, that:

1. All discovery in this action shall be stayed through the 10th day after the Court enters an Order resolving the pending motions to dismiss in the related action of Forsythe et al v. Reno Sparks Indian Colony et al, No. 2:16-CV-01867-GMN-VCF ("Forsythe") unless Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complaint, in which case discovery shall be stayed through the 10th day after the amended complaint is filed;

2. Notwithstanding the above, this stay of discovery is subject to jurisdictional discovery if any such discovery is ordered by the Court to resolve the pending motions;

3. Notwithstanding the above, this stay of discovery shall expire if there has been no ruling on the pending motions to dismiss in the Forsythe action by April 30, 2017;

4. No party shall serve requests for discovery until the stay has expired;

5. The parties shall not be required to serve initial disclosures, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a), until the stay of discovery has expired;

6. This Stipulation is made without prejudice to any party's right to move to extend the stay of discovery;

7. The parties stipulate and request that the 12/29/16 date presently set for the Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order be vacated, and the parties further agree and stipulate that they will confer and propose to the Court a new date for the Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order and associated discovery after the Court resolves the pending motions to dismiss in the related Forsythe action.

8. This Stipulation applies to this proceeding only.

For these reasons, the Parties jointly request that the Court stay discovery and Rule 16 and Rule 26 obligations until the Court rules on the two pending motions to dismiss.

I, Daniel Allum, file this Stipulated Joint Motion for Stay of Discovery and its (Proposed) Order Staying Discovery. The Defendants' counsel has authorized the undersigned to sign this stipulate joint motion on their behalf and to so advise the Court.

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION REQUESTING STAY OF DISCOVERY

Plaintiffs Jana Forsythe and Forsythe Enterprises, Inc. and Defendants Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Arlan Melendez, Steve Moran, Steve Stout, Vicky Oldenburg, Wood-Rodgers, Inc., and Mark Cendagorta, by and through their respective counsel, filed a stipulated joint motion requesting a stay of discovery until such time as the Court rules on Defendants' motions to dismiss (ECF No. 17 and ECF No. 19). Defendants' motions raise a challenge to this Court's subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6), and as such, discovery is not necessary for its resolution, unless the Court orders limited jurisdictional discovery. For this reason, and in the interests of maintaining an orderly, efficient, and less costly resolution to this dispute, the Court hereby GRANTS the stipulated joint motion. All discovery is stayed through the 10th day after the Court enters an Order resolving Defendants' pending motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer