1|| JARED RICHARDS, ESQ. (11254) SHEA I. BILLADEAU, ESQ. (14481) CLEAR COUNSEL LAW GROUP 3|| 1671 West Horizon Ridge Parkway Suite 200 4|| Henderson, NV 89012 Telephone: (702) 476-5900 Fax: (702) 924-0709 6 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 7\| Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ? DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 LUIS LOPEZ, an individual, CASE NO.: 2:25-cv-00721-RFB-MDC 1] Plaintiff, 12 JOINT MOTION TO STAY vs. DISCOVERY 14 RAYMOND JOSEPH NOGERA, and individual; KEY INSURANCE COMPANY, 15 a foreign corporation; MED JAMES, INC., a foreign corporation; DOES I through X; 16|| and ROE LEGAL ENTITIES I through X, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff, Luis Lopez ("Lopez"), by and through his attorneys of record, the law firm Clear Counsel Law Group, and Defendant Med James, Inc. ("MJI"), by and through its attorneys of 21 record, the law firms Reisman Sorokac and Warns Law, hereby jointly move the Court for a stay 22 of discovery (the "Motion"). 23 This motion is made and based upon the papers and pleadings on file, the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and any oral argument required by this Court. 26)| /// /// 28

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS 3 Lopez filed his Complaint on January 30, 2025, in Nevada's Eighth Judicial District Court, 4 Clark County, Nevada, with the case captioned "Luis Lopez, Plaintiff v. Raymond Jospeh Nogera, 5 Key Insurance Company, Med James, Inc., Does I through X, and Roe Legal Entities I through X, 6 7 Defendants," Case No. A-25-911389-C. 8 On April 25, 2025, MJI filed a Notice of Removal based on diversity jurisdiction, asserting 9 an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000 and complete diversity of the parties based upon 10 the argument that Defendant Nogera was fraudulently joined and misjoined. (See ECF No. 1.) 11 On May 6, 2025, MJI filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, (ECF 12 No. 4), and also a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State Claim and Lack of Subject Matter 13 Jurisdiction (collectively, the "Motions to Dismiss"). (ECF No. 5.) Lopez filed responses to the 14 15 Motions to Dismiss on May 20, 2025, (ECF Nos. 8 and 9), and MJI filed reply briefs in support of 16 the Motions to Dismiss on May 30, 2025. (ECF Nos. 14 and 15.) 17 On May 23, 2025, Lopez filed a Motion to Remand this case back to state court 18 (collectively with the Motions to Dismiss, the "Pending Motions"). (ECF No. 10.) On June 6, 19 2025, MJI filed its response to the Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 16), and Lopez filed a reply brief 20 in support of the Motion to Remand on June 13, 2025. (ECF No. 19.) 21 22 On May 23, 2025, counsel for Lopez and MJI held an FRCP 26(f) conference and agreed 23 that good cause existed to stay discovery in this matter pending this Court's adjudication of the 24 Pending Motions. (See ECF No. 12 ¶ 12 ("as the briefing on MJI's Motions [to Dismiss] and on 25 26 27 28 1 Lopez's Motion to Remand has not yet been completed, Lopez and MJI will submit a Stipulation 2 and Order to stay discovery until after the Court rules on the [m]otions").1 3 II. ARGUMENT 4 Under Judge Couvillier's Standing Order, "[i]f a party believes that discovery should be 5 stayed pending a decision on [a] motion to dismiss, the party is required to file a motion to stay." 6 7 The Standing Order requires the motion to "address the factors articulated in Schrader v. Wynn 8 Las Vegas, LLC,

, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021)." 9 "A motion to stay discovery is governed by Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil 10 Procedure." Grand Canyon Skywalk Dev. LLC v. Steele, No. 2:13-CV-00596-JAD,

60216, at *3 (D. Nev. Jan. 7, 2014). "The standard for staying discovery under Rule 26(c) is good 12 cause." Schrader,

, at *2. Good cause includes "undue burden or expense."

13 "The Court may grant motions to stay discovery when a dispositive motion is pending if (1) the 14 15 dispositive motion can be decided without further discovery; and (2) good cause exists to stay 16 discovery." Id. at *4. 17 "[A] pending Motion to Dismiss is not ordinarily a situation that in and of itself would 18 warrant a stay of discovery." Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Emps. Ins. of Wausau,

, 19 653 (D. Nev. 1989). "A situation that in and of itself would warrant a stay of discovery occurs 20 when jurisdiction, venue, or immunity are preliminary issues [raised by a motion to dismiss]." St. 21 22 Clair v. iEnergizer, Inc., No. 220CV01880GMNVCF,

, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 22, 23 2021) (cleaned up) (quotation omitted) (emphasis added). "[A] pending motion challenging 24 jurisdiction strongly favors a stay, or at minimum, limitations on discovery until the question of 25 26 27 1 Lopez and MJI originally contemplated seeking a stay of discovery via stipulation and order. In 28 1 jurisdiction is resolved." AMC Fabrication, Inc. v. KRD Trucking W., Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00146- 2 LDG,

, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2012). "A defendant should not be required to 3 engage in expensive and burdensome discovery in a court that has no jurisdiction over him." 4 Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Letyagin, No. 2:12-CV-00923-LRH,

, at *5 5 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2012). 6 7 Here, this case is ripe for a stay of discovery. First, Lopez and MJI agree that the Pending 8 Motions can largely be resolved without discovery. While Lopez has requested limited 9 jurisdictional discovery in his oppositions brief (which MJI has opposed), the parties agree that, at 10 a minimum, full-blown discovery is unnecessary. Lopez and MJI also agree that the issue of 11 whether jurisdictional discovery should be permitted is an issue for the Court in adjudicating the 12 Motions to Dismiss. Discovery is unnecessary for resolution of the Motion to Remand. 13 Accordingly, this factor favors the present stay of discovery, with the issue of limited jurisdictional 14 15 discovery to be determined by the Court in adjudicating the Motions to Dismiss. 16 Second, Lopez and MJI also agree that good cause exists to stay discovery pending the 17 Court's resolution of the Pending Motions because conducting discovery in the current posture— 18 where the case may soon be dismissed—would subject them to undue burden or expense. This is 19 a complex case involving 4 parties and 7 causes of action2 pertaining to: (1) MJI and Key 20 Insurance's business relationship since 2007; (2) the lengthy claims-handling of the underlying 21 22 insurance claim; and (3) Defendant Nogera's alleged conduct wasting assets. An enormous volume 23 of documents are at issue and MJI and Key Insurance's material witnesses are all in Kansas. MJI 24 25 26

27

28 asserts that Lopez's claims are not yet ripe, so it asserts that discovery is not appropriate at this time, and may never be appropriate. Given MJI's challenge to both subject-matter jurisdiction (based on ripeness) and personal 5 jurisdiction, the law "strongly favors a stay". AMC Fabrication, Inc.,

, at *2.

6 MJI "should not be required to engage in expensive and burdensome discovery in a court that [may 7|| not have] jurisdiction over [it]." Liberty Media Holdings, LLC,

, at *5. 8 || Accordingly, this factor strongly favors a stay of discovery. ? Ill. CONCLUSION 10 Based upon the foregoing, MJI and Lopez both agree that this Motion should be granted 1] and discovery should be stayed pending the Court's resolution of the Pending Motions. 12 3 Dated this 20" day of June, 2025.

14|| CLEAR COUNSEL LAW GROUP REISMAN SOROKAC 15 /s/ Shea Billadeau, Esq. /s/ Robert R. Warns IIT, Esq. 16|| Jared R. Richards, Esq. (11254) Joshua S. Reisman, Esq. Shea I. Billadeau, Esq. (14481) Nevada Bar No. 7152 1671 W. Horizon Ridge Pkwy., Suite 200 Robert R. Warns III, Esq.? 18 Henderson, NV 89012 Nevada Bar No. 12123 Attorneys for Plaintiff 8965 South Eastern Avenue, Suite 382 19 Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 20 Attorneys for Defendant Med James, Inc. 21 a “7 a IT IS SO ORDERED. fil ee 22 / < a □□ sig 1 F 23 Of fn ff 24 / ff Fon. Maximisigno D. Couvil]; r Il 95 L United See ite rage Dated: 6-37-25 26 27 28) 3 Mr. Warns is an independent contractor for Reisman Sorokac.