Klein et al v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust, No. 2:2022cv01392 - Document 58 (D. Nev. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 55 Stipulation to Stay Discovery Pending Rulings on Defendants' 39 , 40 , 42 Motions to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 4/20/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Klein et al v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust Doc. 58 Case 2:22-cv-01392-GMN-BNW Document 58 55 Filed 04/20/23 04/18/23 Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Shannon G. Splaine, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 8241 LINCOLN, GUSTAFSON & CERCOS LLP 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89169-5968 Tel: (702) 257-1997 Fax: (702) 257-2203 E-Mail: ssplaine@lgclawoffice.com Bryan C. Shartle – Pro Hac Vice Bradley J. St. Angelo – Pro Hac Vice SESSIONS ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLC 3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 200 Metairie, LA 70002-7227 Tel: (504) 828-3700 Fax: (504) 828-3737 E-mail: bshartle@sessions.legal E-mail: bstangelo@sessions.legal James K. Schultz, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10219 SESSIONS ISRAEL & SHARTLE, L.L.P. 1550 Hotel Circle North, Suite 260 San Diego, CA 92108 Tel: (619) 758-1891 Fax: (877) 334-0661 E-mail jschultz@sessions.legal Attorneys for Defendant Transworld Systems Inc. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DISTRICT OF NEVADA Richard Klein, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) National Collegiate Student Loan Trust ) 2005-3, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:22-cv-01392 GMN BNW STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY PENDING RULINGS ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS (First Request) 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-01392-GMN-BNW Document 58 55 Filed 04/20/23 04/18/23 Page 2 of 6 1 STIPULATION 2 It is hereby stipulated by Plaintiffs, Richard Klein, Raymond Urias and 3 Sandra J. Gunter (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendants, Transworld Systems Inc. (“TSI”), 4 National Collegiate Student Loan Trust (“NCSLT”) 2005-3, NCSLT 2006-3, 5 NCSLT 2007-1, NCSLT 2007-2, and NCSLT 2007-3, and NCSLT 2007-4 (the 6 “Trust Defendants”), and Pennsylvania High Education Assistance Agency 7 (“PHEAA”) (collectively, “Defendants” and, with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), through 8 undersigned counsel, that discovery in this action be stayed pending resolution of 9 Defendants’ respective motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint 10 (the “Motions to Dismiss”) (ECF Nos. 39, 40, 42). In support of this Stipulated 11 Motion, the Parties respectfully state as follows: 12 I. 13 14 On August 26, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against the Trust Defendants. ECF No. 1. 15 16 On December 23, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (the “FAC), adding TSI and PHEAA as additional defendants. ECF No. 20. 17 18 On March 8, 2023, TSI and the Trust Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the FAC. ECF Nos. 39, 40. 19 20 On March 13, 2023, PHEAA filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC. ECF No. 42. 21 22 On April 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to PHEAA’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 52. 23 24 25 26 PROCEDURAL HISTORY PHEAA’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss is currently due on April 17. Plaintiffs’ Oppositions to TSI and the Trust Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are currently due on April 19, 2023. See ECF No. 51. 27 28 2 Case 2:22-cv-01392-GMN-BNW Document 58 55 Filed 04/20/23 04/18/23 Page 3 of 6 1 II. LAW AND ARGUMENT 2 As the Ninth Circuit has confirmed, “[t]he purpose of F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is 3 to enable defendants to challenge the legal sufficiency of complaints without 4 subjecting themselves to discovery.” Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 5 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987). Likewise, a district court has “wide discretion 6 in controlling discovery.” Little v. Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); see 7 also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) (describing the court’s ability to limit the scope of 8 discovery). Ultimately, when deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, a court 9 is guided by the objectives of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 that ensures a “just, 10 speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Schrader v. Wynn Las 11 Vegas, LLC, 2021 WL 4810324, *3 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. 12 P. 1); see also Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011) 13 (explaining that courts evaluating the propriety of a stay have cautioned against the 14 use of resources that may be rendered unnecessary, noting the simple, but accurate 15 principle: “Discovery is expensive”). 16 All Defendants have Motions to Dismiss pending before the Court seeking 17 dismissal of all of Plaintiffs’ respective claims against each of them. See ECF Nos. 18 39, 40, 42. Plaintiffs have already filed an opposition to one of the Motions to 19 Dismiss (ECF No. 52) and will soon file their oppositions to the two remaining 20 motions. The Parties are in agreement that discovery is not required for the Court 21 to decide the Motions to Dismiss. Because the Court’s ruling(s) on the Motions to 22 Dismiss could potentially result in dismissal of the entire case (or some 23 Defendants), it would be an inefficient use of resources to engage in discovery 24 prior to the Court’s ruling. See Sibley v. U.S. Sup. Ct., 786 F. Supp. 2d 338, 346 25 (D.D.C. 2011) (“[I]t is well settled that discovery is generally considered 26 inappropriate while a motion that would be thoroughly dispositive of the claims in 27 the Complaint is pending.”). 28 3 Case 2:22-cv-01392-GMN-BNW Document 58 55 Filed 04/20/23 04/18/23 Page 4 of 6 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Parties respectfully request the Court stay all 3 discovery until the Court issues a decision on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the 4 FAC. 5 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 6 Dated:April 18, 2023 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 FREEDOM LAW FIRM WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP /s/ George Haines George Haines, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 9411 Gerardo Avalos, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 15171 8985 South Eastern Ave., Suite 350 Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 /s/ Ramir M. Hernandez Ramir M. Hernandez, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13146 Darren T. Brenner Nevada Bar No. 8386 7785 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 (702) 475-7964; Fax: (702) 946-1345 MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC LOCKE LORD LLP Scott C. Harris* N.C. Bar No: 35328 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5003 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 sharris@milberg.com /s/ J. Matthew Goodin J. Matthew Goodin 111 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4100 Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 443-0472 jmgoodin@lockelord.com 22 Gary M. Klinger* 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 866.252.0878 gklinger@milberg.com 23 *to motion for appearance pro hac vice SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLP 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 Attorneys for the Trust Defendants Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class Attorneys for Plaintiff /s/ James K. Schultz and on behalf of all others similarly James K. Schultz Nevada Bar No. 10219 situated 1550 Hotel Circle North, Suite 260 San Diego, CA 92108 Tel: (619) 758-1891 4 Case 2:22-cv-01392-GMN-BNW Document 58 55 Filed 04/20/23 04/18/23 Page 5 of 6 Fax: (877) 334-0661 E-mail: jschultz@sessions.legal 1 2 3 SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLC 4 5 /s/ Bradley J. St. Angelo Bryan C. Shartle – Pro Hac Vice Bradley J. St. Angelo – Pro Hac Vice 3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 200 Metairie, LA 70002-7227 Tel: (504) 828-3700 Fax: (504) 828-3737 E-mail: bshartle@sessions.legal E-mail: bstangelo@sessions.legal 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LINCOLN, GUSTAFSON & CERCOS LLP 13 14 Shannon G. Splaine, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 8241 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89169-5968 Tel: (702) 257-1997 Fax: (702) 257-2203 E-Mail: ssplaine@lgclawoffice.com 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Attorneys for Transworld Systems Inc. 22 BROWNSTEIN HYATT SCHRECK, LLP 23 24 FARBER /s/ Patrick J. Reilly Patrick J. Reilly, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6103 Monique S. Jammer, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 15420 100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89106 25 26 27 28 5 Case 2:22-cv-01392-GMN-BNW Document 58 55 Filed 04/20/23 04/18/23 Page 6 of 6 Telephone: 702.382.2101 Facsimile: 702.382.8135 preilly@bhfs.com mjammer@bhfs.com 1 2 3 4 Attorneys for American Education Services, LLC 5 6 ORDER 7 8 Pursuant to the Parties’ stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 9 Discovery in this matter is STAYED in its entirety pending a ruling on 10 Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 39, 40, 42). In the event the Court 11 allows one or more claims to proceed, any remaining parties shall submit a proposed 12 14 (30) days after the Court discovery plan and scheduling order no later than thirty 13 issues its ruling. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED: 15 16 17 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 DATED: April 20, 2023 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
