Hernandez v. Lead You LLC

1 Marquis Aurbach Nick D. Crosby, Esq.

2 Nevada Bar No. 8996 Jordan W. Montet, Esq.

Nevada Bar No. 14743 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 Telephone: (702) 382-0711 Facsimile: (702) 382-5816 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Lead You, LLC and Jose Angel Ortiz Ureno 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ANA HERNANDEZ, individually and on Case Number: 2:25-cv-00412-JCM-DJA behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 12 ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY AND vs. COMPLIANCE WITH FRCP 26(F) 13 PENDING DISPOSITION OF LEAD YOU LLC, a Nevada Limited DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Liability Company and JOSE ANGEL WITH SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORTIZ URENO, as an individual, TREATMENT Defendants.

17 COME NOW, all parties by and through their counsel of record, and hereby stipulate and agree that discovery and the parties’ obligations to comply with the requirements of FRCP 26(f), including, but not limited to, the obligation to conduct a discovery planning conference and file a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order, shall be stayed until the Court decides Defendants’, Lead You LLC and Jose Angel Ortiz Ureno (“Defendants”), Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, with Summary Judgment Treatment. This Stipulation is submitted and based upon the following: 24 1. Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988).

26 / / / / / / / / / 1 2. “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with the economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936).

5 3. This power has been codified in Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pursuant to which “a court has discretion to stay discovery for good cause shown.” Spencer Trask Software & Info. Servs., LLC v. RPost Int’l Ltd., 206 F.R.D. 367, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); AMC Fabrication, Inc. v. KRD Trucking W., Inc., 2012 WL 4846152, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2012) (granting stay of discovery pending disposition of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction); Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011) (granting stay of discovery pending disposition of Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim); Babin-De-Jesus v. Am. Express Co., 2016 WL 3563082, at *2 (D.

13 Nev. June 28, 2016) (same).

14 4. Whether to grant a stay is within the discretion of the court, particularly where, as here, a stay would promote judicial economy and efficiency. See e.g. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (district courts possess “inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket in a manner which will promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”); Munoz-Santana v. U.S. I.N.S., 742 F.2d 561, 562 (9th Cir. 1984).

20 5. When deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, a court is guided by the objectives of FRCP 1 that ensures a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Little, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 2013 23 WL 5938679 at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 29, 2013).

24 6. Courts evaluating the propriety of a stay have cautioned against the use of resources that may be rendered unnecessary, noting the simple, but accurate principle: “Discovery is expensive.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011).

1 7. Plaintiff filed her Complaint on March 6, 2025. ECF No. 1.

2 8. Defendants were served with the Complaint on March 8, 2025.

3 9. On April 8, 2025, Defendants filed its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with summary judgment treatment requested. ECF No. 5.

5 10. On April 21, 2025, Plaintiff requested a four-week extension to file an opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss due to Plaintiff's lead counsels current trial obligations in order to sufficiently investigate the motion to dismiss and provide a meaningful response. ECF No. 7.

9 11. Defendants granted such a request, which was memorialized in Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Id. 12 12. The deadline for Plaintiff to oppose Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is May 20, 2025. Id. 14 13. Defendants intend to file a Reply to its Motion to Dismiss on May 27, 2025.

15 14. Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5, if granted, would be dispositive of the entire case.

17 15. The Parties agree that the pending Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5, can be decided without additional discovery, unless the court orders otherwise.

19 16. The Parties agree that vacating discovery deadlines and staying discovery is appropriate until the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5.

21 17. It is agreed that a stay of discovery deadlines will save the parties and the Court significant resources and time.

23 18. This stay is not brought in bad faith or for the purposes of delay.

24 / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 19, In the event that the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5, is denied, the Parties || further stipulate that the Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(f) conference will be held no later than 15 days || after the Court enters its order and that a discovery plan will be submitted to the Court no || later than 30 days after the Court enters its order.

5 ||| Dated this 24" day of April 2025. Dated this 24" day of April 2025.

6 MARQUIS AURBACH CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW FIRM /s/ Jordan W. Montet /s/_ Michael Yancey, III Nick D. Crosby, Esq. Michael Yancey, III ||| Nevada Bar No. 8996 Nevada Bar No. 16158 Jordan W. Montet, Esq. 2300 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 500 ||| Nevada Bar No. 14743 Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 10001 Park Run Drive Attorney(s) for Plaintiff Ana Hernandez 11 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 Attorney(s) for Defendants Lead You, LLC © and Jose Angel Ortiz Ureno 15 ORDER ago 16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 , a oe 19 UNITED STATES MAGIST ATE JUDGE Dated: 4/25/2025 Page 4 of 4