1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * NICANDRO ROSALES, Case No. 3:25-CV-00173-ART-CLB 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY 5 DISCOVERY v. 6 [ECF No. 35] JERRITT CANYON GOLD LLC, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ Jerritt Canyon Gold LLC and 9 FM US Holdings Limited (collectively referred to as “Defendants”), motion to stay 10 discovery, (ECF No. 35). Plaintiff Nicandro Rosales (“Rosales”), responded to the motion, 11 (ECF No. 42), and Defendants replied, (ECF No. 43). For the reasons set forth below, the 12 Court denies the motion to stay discovery. 13 To determine if a stay is appropriate pending the ruling on a motion to dismiss, the 14 court must consider the following factors: (1) whether the pending motion is potentially 15 dispositive of the case; (2) whether the motion can be decided without additional 16 discovery; and (3) whether the court is convinced that the plaintiff cannot state a claim for 17 relief. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green,

(D. Nev. 2013).1 The Court 18 must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying dispositive motion to find 19 whether the plaintiff can state a claim. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc.,

, 603 20 (D. Nev. 2011). The “preliminary peek” does not prejudge the outcome of the motion; it 21 merely evaluates whether an order staying discovery is warranted. See

22 In conducting its review, the Court also considers the goal of Federal Rule of Civil 23 Procedure 1, which provides that the Rules should “be construed, administered, and 24 employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive 25 determination of every action.” With Rule 1 as its prime directive, the court must decide 26

1 The undersigned follows the majority approach within the District when 27 adjudicating motions to stay discovery—i.e., the preliminary peek framework outlined in Kor Media—and expressly adopts the analysis from Judge Koppe’s order in Flynn v. 1 whether it is more just to speed the parties along in discovery while a dispositive motion 2 is pending or to delay discovery to accomplish the inexpensive determination of the case. 3 See Big City Dynasty v. FP Holdings, L.P.,

, 512 (D. Nev. 2020). 4 With these principles in mind, the Court turns to the pleadings and motions 5 underlying Defendants’ motion to stay discovery. Pursuant to the Kor Media factors, the 6 Court must first determine whether Defendants’ motion to dismiss is potentially 7 dispositive. Here, Defendants’ motion primarily seeks dismissal of Rosales’s claims on 8 the basis that Rosales has failed to state “plausible claims for unpaid wages, failure to 9 pay minimum wage, or failure to pay overtime wages, both under the Fair Labor 10 Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Nevada state law, against either Defendant.” (ECF No. 35 at 11 3.) Thus, the motion to dismiss is potentially dispositive. 12 The parties also dispute the second and third Kor Media factors. (ECF Nos. 35, 13 42.) Assuming without deciding whether additional discovery is needed for Defendants’ 14 motion to dismiss, the Court focuses on the third factor, or preliminary peak. In conducting 15 this “preliminary peek,” the Court reviewed the operative Complaint in this action, (ECF 16 No. 1), the filings related to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (ECF Nos. 28, 34, 41), and 17 the current filings related to the motion to stay, (ECF Nos. 35, 42, 43). Moreover, the 18 Court considered the primary objectives of Rule 1 and the purpose of discovery in this 19 matter. 20 Rosales alleges several claims under the FLSA and Nevada state law for failure 21 to pay overtime wages, minimum wages, and all wages due. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants 22 argue Rosales has failed to state “plausible claims for unpaid wages, failure to pay 23 minimum wage, or failure to pay overtime wages, both under the Fair Labor Standards 24 Act (“FLSA”) and Nevada state law, against either Defendant.” (ECF No. 35 at 3.) 25 Defendants also assert Rosales’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations. (ECF 26 No. 28 at 14-16.) 27 Here, the Court is not convinced the motion to dismiss will be granted in its entirety. raised by the Defendants in Wieben v. Nevada Gold Mines in granting in-part and deny in-part the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See 3:24-CV-00575-MMD-CSC,

| 1785885 (D. Nev. June 27, 2025). In Wieben, the Court particularly denied dismissing 4) similar claims related to overtime pay and minimum wages and the requisite statute of 5 | limitations as raised by Rosales in this case. See

Defendants assert there are key differences between Wieben and the case at hand. But considering that Defendants 7 | themselves assert that “some of [the] claims may be remedied by amending the 8 | complaint,” (ECF No. 35 at 7), the Court is not convinced Rosales will not be able to state claims for relief such that discovery would be a waste of effort. To the extent Defendants’ motion to dismiss is based on pleading deficiencies, the District Court will likely grant Rosales leave to amend her complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“The court should 12 freely give leave when justice so requires.”). 13 Therefore, the Court is therefore not “convinced” that Defendants motion to dismiss 14| will be granted and finds that Defendants fail to make the “strong showing” necessary to support a stay of discovery. Even if Defendants are correct that Rosales has not yet met 16| the relevant pleading standards, a stay is unwarranted because an amendment will likely be allowed which could cure the present deficiencies. Proceeding with discovery while Defendants’ motion to dismiss is pending will further the just and speedy determination of this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Accordingly, the Court finds Defendants’ motion to stay discovery should be denied. 21 Having determined Defendants have failed to make the strong showing required to stay discovery pending a decision on the motion to dismiss, the motion to stay discovery, (ECF No. 35), is DENIED. Pursuant to the Court’s June 23, 2025 Minute Order, (ECF No. 37), the parties are ORDERED to file a joint case management report by no later than THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 2025. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. » 27 DATED: July 24,2025 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE