Trustees of the Electrical Workers Health and Welfare Trust et al v. F.A.S.T. Systems, Inc. et al
Filing
43
ORDER Granting 41 Motion to Stay Proceedings. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file joint interim status reports on April 5, 2013 and June 5, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 2/5/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
TRUSTEES OF THE ELECTRICAL WORKERS )
HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
F.A.S.T. SYSTEMS, INC. et. al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
Case No. 2:12-cv-00148-JCM-CWH
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Proceedings (#41), filed on
14
January 18, 2013. The Court also considered Defendant Fidelity and Deposit Company of
15
Maryland’s Joinder (#42), filed on January 24, 2013.
16
17
BACKGROUND
On January 27, 2012, Plaintiffs filed this action seeking delinquent contributions, costs, and
18
damages regarding the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, a collective bargaining
19
agreement, and trust agreements. On August 17, 2012, F.A.S.T. Systems, Inc. (“F.A.S.T.”) filed
20
for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Nevada, Case No. 12-4646263. On
21
September 5, 2012, F.A.S.T. filed a notice of bankruptcy with this court. See Suggestion of
22
Bankruptcy #18. As a result, an automatic stay with respect to F.A.S.T. has been in effect since
23
September 5, 2012. See Amended Order #22. In the instant motion, Plaintiffs request that a stay be
24
instituted with respect to the other Defendant, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland
25
(“Fidelity”).
26
DISCUSSION
27
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays.
28
Skellercup Indus. Ltd. V. City of L.A., 163 F.R.D. 598 600-01 (C.D. Cal 1995) (finding that a stay
of discovery is directly at odds with the need for expeditious resolution of litigation. Ordinarily a
1
pending dispositive motion is not “a situation that in and of itself would warrant a stay of
2
discovery.” See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 555-56 (D.
3
Nev. 1997) (quoting Twin City Fire Ins. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653
4
(D.Nev. 1989)). Common examples of such situations when a stay may be appropriate are when
5
jurisdiction, venue, or immunity are preliminary issues. Id. Ultimately, the party seeking the stay
6
“carries the heavy burden of making a ‘strong showing’ why discovery should be denied.” Id.
7
(citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.1975)).
8
Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery including the decision to allow
9
or deny discovery. See e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). An overly
10
lenient standard for granting motions to stays due to pending dispositive motions would result in
11
unnecessary delay in many cases. That discovery may involve inconvenience and expense is not
12
sufficient to support a stay of discovery. Turner Broadcasting, 175 F.R.D. at 556.1 Rather, a stay
13
of discovery should only be ordered if the court is convinced that a plaintiff will be unable to state a
14
claim for relief. See Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011).
15
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have made the strong showing necessary to support the
16
requested stay of discovery. Plaintiffs seek a stay of this action pending the outcome of a state
17
case. On December 7, 2012, Defendant Fidelity filed an interpleader action in state court. Case
18
No. A-12-67338-C. In its Joinder, Fidelity alleges that the interpleader action shall dispose of
19
Plaintiff’s claim. Therefore, the parties contend that a stay of this action pending the resolution of
20
that case is appropriate. Given Defendant Fidelity’s lack of opposition, the Court finds good cause
21
to stay this action pending the outcome of the interpleader case. Such a stay will promote judicial
22
efficiency as the outcome of the state interpleader action will assist in the resolution of this case.
23
Accordingly, the Court will grant a stay until the state interpleader action is resolved. However, the
24
Court will require that the parties file joint interim status reports in sixty (60) days and one hundred
25
and twenty (120) days to keep it apprised of the progress of that action.
26
27
1
28
As noted in Tradebay, “[t]he fact that a non-frivolous motion is pending is simply not enough to warrant a blanket
stay of all discovery.” 278 F.R.D. at 603.
2
1
Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore,
2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Proceedings (#41) is granted.
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file joint interim status reports on April
4
5
5, 2013 and June 5, 2013.
DATED this 5th day of February, 2013.
6
7
______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
