STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff Kevin Zimmerman and Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., by and through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby move this Court for and Order staying all proceedings. A stay in this matter would be appropriate until the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss to be filed by the Nevada Attorney General in Zimmerman v. GJS Group, Inc., 2:17-cv-00304-GMN-GWF.

Factual Background

On August 8, 2017, the State of Nevada ex rel. Adam Paul Laxalt, the Nevada Attorney General moved to intervene in Zimmerman v. GJS Group for the limited purpose of seeking consolidation of similar actions, including this Case, filed by the Plaintiff in Zimmerman v. GJS Group and this Action. On October 11, 2017, this Court ordered, in part, that the State of Nevada's Motion to Intervene is granted and the State of Nevada may move for consolidation of this action and other actions filed by Plaintiff Zimmerman1. The Parties file this Stipulated Motion to Stay in anticipation of the motion to consolidate this action and the State of Nevada's Motion to Dismiss all consolidated cases.

Legal Memorandum

"The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its own docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." LaSala v. Needham & Co., Inc., 399 F.Supp.2d 421, 427 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163 (1936)).

In this Action, this Court has set a scheduling order which the parties have followed. The upcoming dates require the parties to continue participation in the litigation including disclosure of documents, identifying expert witnesses, deposing individuals, moving for dispositive rulings, and other dates designed to lead this case to a prompt trial date. It would not be economical for the parties to this action to pay attorneys' fees, expert costs, and invest time in pursuit of, or defense against, claims given the State of Nevada's pending motion to consolidate and planned motion to dismiss. It would not be economical for this court to consider and rule upon requests from the parties in light of the State of Nevada's pending motions. All discovery, motions practice, investigations, legal work, and associated efforts would be a waste of resources and a drain on this court's limited resources if the consolidation requested is granted.

If the consolidation requested by the State of Nevada is denied, neither party will be prejudiced, but will still be in a position to pursue or defend against Plaintiff's discrimination claims which occurred on the date alleged in the complaint.

The Parties therefore respectfully move for a stipulated order staying all proceedings in this case until after the court in Zimmerman v. GJS Group rules on the State of Nevada's Motion to Consolidate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.