United Automobile Insurance Company v. Christensen, 2:18-cv-02269-JAD-PAL. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190429e42
Visitors: 11
Filed: Apr. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 26, 2019
Summary: ORDER (Mot Stay — ECF No. 26 PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is defendant Thomas Christensen's Motion to Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 26) asking the court to stay discovery in this case. Defendants Arntz and Lewis have filed Joinders (ECF Nos. 28, 29) to the motion. No opposition has been filed, and the time for filing an opposition has expired. Also before the court is the parties' proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 27) which requests special scheduling
Summary: ORDER (Mot Stay — ECF No. 26 PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is defendant Thomas Christensen's Motion to Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 26) asking the court to stay discovery in this case. Defendants Arntz and Lewis have filed Joinders (ECF Nos. 28, 29) to the motion. No opposition has been filed, and the time for filing an opposition has expired. Also before the court is the parties' proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 27) which requests special scheduling r..
More
ORDER (Mot Stay — ECF No. 26
PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is defendant Thomas Christensen's Motion to Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 26) asking the court to stay discovery in this case. Defendants Arntz and Lewis have filed Joinders (ECF Nos. 28, 29) to the motion. No opposition has been filed, and the time for filing an opposition has expired. Also before the court is the parties' proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 27) which requests special scheduling review.
Defendant Christensen filed a Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to NRS.41.660 (ECF No. 5) under Nevada's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute. When a party files a special motion, the state statute requires a stay discovery pending a ruling on the special motion. NRS 41.660(3)(e). The motion is fully briefed and waiting a ruling from the district judge.
Having reviewed and considered the matter, the court will grant the motion to stay and require the parties to submit a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order 14 days after entry of the order on the special motion to dismiss if any claims survive. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED.
2. The court will not enter the proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 27). Instead, the parties shall submit a proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order 14 days after entry of the order deciding the special motion to dismiss should any claims survive.
Source: Leagle
