Christopher Beavor v. Delphi CRE Funding LLC, Does I through X and Roe...
Christopher Beavor v. Delphi CRE Funding LLC, Does I through X and Roe...
Trial Court Opinion
1 SALTZMAN MUGAN DUSHOFF JOEL Z. SCHWARZ 2 Nevada Bar No. 009181 E-Mail: [email protected] 3 ELIZABETH FRIEDMAN Nevada Bar No. 014472 4 E-Mail: [email protected] 1835 Village Center Circle 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 Telephone: (702) 405-8500 6 Facsimile: (702) 405-8501 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 * * * 12 CHRISTOPHER BEAVOR, an individual, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01106-APG-DJA 13 Plaintiff, 14 vs. JOINT MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION 15 DELPHI CRE FUNDING LLC, a Delaware ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO Limited Liability Company, Defendants DISMISS COMPLAINT 16 DOES I through X and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER BEAVOR (“Beavor”) and Defendant DELPHI CRE FUNDING 20 LLC (“Delphi,” and together with Beavor, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel 21 of record, respectfully move the Court to stay discovery in this action pending resolution of 22 Delphi’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint [ECF No. 11] (the “Motion to Dismiss”), briefing of which 23 will be completed on October 9, 2025. See Order Granting Stipulation for Extension of Time (First 24 Request), ECF No. 22. 25 This Joint Motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and 26 the pleadings and documents filed in this case, incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 District courts have “broad discretion when deciding whether to grant a motion to stay 3 discovery.” Catalystix Inc. v. Legacy Creative Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-01253,
2022 WL 1694587, at 4 *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 17, 2022). In this District, courts apply a two-part test when evaluating whether 5 there is good cause to stay discovery pending resolution of a dispositive motion. Sanchez v. 6 Windhaven Nat’l Ins. Co., No. 2:19-cv-02196,
2020 WL 3489333, at *2 (D. Nev. June 25, 2020). 7 The Court considers (1) “whether the pending motion is potentially dispositive of the entire case,” 8 and (2) “whether that motion can be decided without additional discovery.” Navajo Health Found. 9 –Sage Mem’l Hosp., Inc. v. Razaghi Dev. Co., LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00329,
2021 WL 1397229, at *6 10 (D. Nev. Jan. 15, 2021). “With Rule 1 in mind, a court deciding on a motion to stay discovery 11 considers whether it is more just to speed the parties along in discovery and other proceedings 12 while a dispositive motion is pending, or whether it is more just to delay or limit discovery and 13 other proceedings to accomplish the inexpensive determination of the case.” Seelig v. Old Vegas 14 Manor & Ests. Homeowners Ass’n, No. 2:20-cv-01976,
2021 WL 5415332, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 15 18, 2021) (internal quotations omitted). 16 Delphi first appeared in this matter on August 25, 2025, when it filed its Motion to Dismiss. 17 ECF No. 11 The Parties, with approval from the Court, modified the briefing schedule on the 18 Motion to Dismiss to allow Beavor additional time to file an opposition and Delphi additional time 19 to file a reply, such that briefing will be completed October 9, 2025. See ECF Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 20 22. 21 Pursuant to LR 26-1(a), the Parties are to conduct a discovery scheduling conference 22 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) within 30 days of Delphi’s appearance and submit a stipulated 23 discovery plan and scheduling order within 14 days thereafter. See
id.Since Delphi first appeared 24 on August 25, 2025, the Rule 26(f) conference is to occur by September 24, 2025, and a stipulated 25 discovery plan and scheduling order is due by October 8, 2025. However, as set forth above, 26 briefing on the Motion to Dismiss will not be completed until October 9, 2025. Further, the Motion 27 to Dismiss is potentially dispositive of the entire case and is based on purely legal arguments which 28 do not require discovery. Staying discovery in this case until the Motion to Dismiss has been fully ] || briefed and decided therefore will prevent the Parties from incurring litigation expenses until the 2 || Court has determined the scope of the action going forward. Accordingly, the Parties respectfully 3 || request that this Court stay discovery pending the outcome of Delphi’s Motion to Dismiss. 4 DATED this 25th day of September 2025. 5 SALTZMAN MUGAN DUSHOFF 7 By___/s/ Joel Z. Schwarz JOEL Z. SCHWARZ 8 Nevada Bar No. 009181 ELIZABETH FRIEDMAN 9 Nevada Bar No. 014472 1835 Village Center Circle 10 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134
_ ti Attorneys for Plaintiff
12
HOLLAND & HART LLP 13 Ose 14 Ses By /s/ Joseph G. Went 15 JOSEPH G. WENT (9220) = Email: [email protected] 16 9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor ~ Las Vegas, NV 89134 217 Telephone: 702-669-4630 18 -and-
19 TIMOTHY A. LUKAS (4678) Email: [email protected] 20 5470 Kietzke* Lane, Suite 100 Reno, NV 89511 21 Telephone: 775-327-3000 22 Attorneys for Defendant 23 || IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED. IT IS A FURTHER ORDERED that if this case proceeds after the Court decides the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11), the parties shall file their stipulated discovery plan within thirty days of the 25 || Court's order. 26 27 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 DATED: September 29, 2025 haat tre Ctaw Miesnvan; Danding Macieinn nn MATER dees (9NO94 OV Pa oP 2 aft A
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that I am an employee of SALTZMAN MUGAN DUSHOFF, and that on 3 the 25th day of September 2025, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing 4 JOINT MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION ON DEFENDANT’S 5 MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT in the following manner: 6 (ELECTRONIC SERVICE) Pursuant to Rule 5-4 of the Local Rules of Civil Practice of 7 the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, the above-referenced document was 8 electronically filed on the date hereof and served through the Notice of Electronic Filing 9 automatically generated by that Court’s facilities. 10 Elizabeth Friedman [email protected], [email protected] 11 Joel Z Schwarz [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 12 Joseph G. Went [email protected], [email protected], 13 [email protected], [email protected] 14 15 /s/ Cindy Kishi An Employee of SALTZMAN MUGAN DUSHOFF 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Christopher Beavor v. Delphi CRE Funding LLC, Does I through X and Roe Corporations I through X
- Status
- Unknown