Purohit v. Abbott Laboratories Inc.

1 || KAEMPFER CROWELL Robert McCoy, No. 9121 || 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 ||Telephone: (702) 792-7000 Facsimile: (702) 796-7181 ||Email: [email protected] |/REED SMITH LLP Jaclyn M. Setil1 Wood (pro hac vice) Three Logan Square 1717 Arch Street, Suite 3100 ||Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19130 Telephone: (215) 851-8100 ||Facsimile: (215) 851-1420 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Abbott ||Laboratories Inc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 DISTRICT OF NEVADA |}RAVINDRANATH V. PUROHIT, an Case No. 2:25-cv-01026-JAD-EJY individual, Plaintiff, 15 STIPULATION TO STAY VS. DISCOVERY PENDING MOTION 16 TO DISMISS ABBOTT LABORATORIES INC., a ||Delaware Corporation; DOES I through X, inclusive; and ROE BUSINESS ||ENTITIES I through X, inclusive, 19 Defendants.

1 Plaintiff Ravindranath V. Purohit and Defendant Abbott Laboratories Inc. (“Abbott”) stipulate to stay discovery for the following reasons: 3 1. In response to the complaint (ECF No.1-1), Abbott filed a motion || to dismiss (ECF No. 12) on July 9, 2025. Plaintiff's response is currently due on || July 23, 2025.

6 2. The motion to dismiss seeks dismissal of all claims in this case, || with prejudice, on the basis that Plaintiffs claims re preempted by federal law under ||21 U.S.C. § 360k(a) (express preemption clause) and/or 21 U.S.C. § 337(a) (FDCA’s || “no private right of action” clause).

10 3. The parties agree that the commencement of discovery should be 11 ||stayed until this motion to dismiss is decided because, if granted, it will resolve all ||claims in this case and requires no discovery to decide nay issues in that motion.

13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 1’s goal of a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every ||action and proceeding” are best met by this temporary stay to conserve judicial and ||party resources. See Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. |/2013).

17 4. The relevant factors that determine whether to stay discovery 18 pending resolution of a potentially dispositive motion justify granting a stay here.

19 || See Kor, 294 F.R.D. at 581 (‘[MJotions to stay discovery may be granted when: (1) || the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion ||can be decided without additional discovery; and the Court has taken a ‘preliminary ||peek’ at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the || plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief.”).

1 For these reasons, the parties request the Court stay discovery pending || decision on ECF No. 12 and direct the parties to file a discovery plan and scheduling || order within 14 days after ECF No. 12 is decided if the case has not been dismissed.

4 |} RAICH LAW PLLC KAEMPFER CROWELL s/ Sagar Raich Sagar Raich, No. 13229 Robert McCoy, No. 9121 Brian Schneider, No. 15458 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 || 2280 East Pama Lane Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 8 REED SMITH LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff Jaclyn M. Setili Wood (pro hac vice) |) Ravindranath V. Purohit Three Logan Square 1717 Arch Street, Suite 3100 10 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19130 11 Attorneys for Defendant Abbott Laboratories Inc. 14 ORDER Id IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 .

7 UNITED STAT STRATE JUDGE DATED: July 10, 2025