Sipple v. Zions Bancorporation, N.A.

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA LINDA LEE SIPPLE, 5 Case No. 2:21-cv-00904-GMN-NJK Plaintiff, 6 ORDER v. 7 [Docket No. 8] g ZIONS BANCORPORATION, N.A., Defendant.

10 Pending before the Court is a stipulation for extension of time for Defendant to respond to 11] Plaintiff's complaint. Docket No. 8. The parties ask the Court to permit Defendant to file a 12|| response to Plaintiff's complaint twenty-one days after the Court issues a ruling on a motion to 13] remand that Plaintiff may or may not file. /d. at 2. The parties submit that granting the instant 14]| request will conserve party and judicial resources. Id. 15 Whether Plaintiff will file a motion to remand is uncertain, as the parties merely submit 16] that Plaintiff “may seek to remand this matter.” /d. Further, the parties fail to explain how granting 17] the instant stipulation, which would effectively stay discovery proceedings whether or not Plaintiff 18] files a motion to remand, would conserve party resources. “[E]ven if the motion to remand is granted, ‘that will not render any discovery conducted moot or otherwise result in a waste of the 20] parties’ resources.’” Anoruo v. Valley Health Sys., 2018 WL 1785866, at *3 (D. Nev. Apr. 13, 21|| 2018) (quoting Cooks-Putnam v. Trump Las Vegas Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 115606, at *3 (D.

22|| Nev. Aug. 31, 2015)); see also Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 23] (D. Nev. 1997) (stating discovery should proceed absent a “strong showing” to the contrary).

24 Accordingly, the parties’ stipulation, Docket No. 8, is hereby DENIED.

25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: June 4, 2021 Nancy J. Koppe 28 United States Magistrate Judge