Hill v. PCC Structurals, Inc.

1 MOLLY M. REZAC Nevada Bar No. 7435 2 molly.rezac@ogletreedeakins.com [3] OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 50 West Liberty Street 4 Suite 920 Reno, NV 89501 5 Telephone: 775.440.2372 Fax: 775.440.2376 [6] Attorney for Defendant [7] PCC Structurals, Inc. [8] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [9] FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA [10] MEGHAN HILL, Case No.: 3:19-cv-00699-MMD-WGC [11] 12 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY 13 vs. THE CASE 14 PCC STRUCTURALS, INC. (First Request) and DOES I-X, [15] Defendants. [17] 18 Pursuant to Local Rule ("LR") LR IA 6-2, LR 7-1, and 26-4, Defendant PCC Structurals, 19 Inc. (“Defendant”) and Plaintiff Meghan Hill (“Plaintiff”), by and through their respective 20 undersigned counsel, hereby request and stipulate to stay the current proceedings until Defendant’s 21 Motion to Compel Arbitration is ruled upon. 22 . . . 23 . . . 24 . . . [27] 1 Defendant filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration on March 9, 2020. See ECF No. 18. The 2 Ninth Circuit has held that, under the FAA, once a court is presented with a motion to compel 3 arbitration, the court’s jurisdiction is limited to making a determination about the arbitrability of the 4 underlying dispute. See Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716, 726 (9th Cir. 1999). 5 Federal courts, including courts in this jurisdiction and circuit, regularly stay discovery and 6 other pre-trial obligations pending a decision on a party’s motion to compel arbitration. See, e.g., 7 Miceli, 2016 WL 1170994 , at *2 (issuing stay of discovery pending hearing on defendant’s motion 8 to compel arbitration); Andrus, 2012 WL 5989646 , at *4 (same); Steiner v. Apple Computer, Inc., [9] 2007 WL 4219388 , *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2007) (a stay of initial scheduling obligations and 10 discovery pending determination of motion to compel is prudent because, “[i]f a dispute is 11 arbitrable, responsibility for the conduct of discovery lies with the arbitrators,” not the court.); 12 Coneff v. AT&T Corp., 2007 WL 738612 , at *3 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 9, 2007) (staying all discovery 13 on the merits until decision on motion to compel arbitration issued); Merrill Lynch, Inc. v. Coors, [14] 357 F. Supp. 2d 1277, 1280 (D. Colo. 2004) (issuing stay of discovery on merits pending district 15 court’s decision on motion to compel in interests of judicial economy; noting that resolution of 16 motion may dispose of action entirely); Cunningham v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 2006 WL 2056576 17 (E.D. Mich. July 21, 2006) (same); Intertec Contracting v. Turner Steiner Int’l., 2001 WL 81224 , 18 at *7 (S.D. N.Y. 2001) (same); see also Mundi, 2007 WL 2385069 , at *5 (staying discovery 19 pending interlocutory appeal of district court’s decision to deny motion to compel arbitration); 20 Winig, 2006 WL 3201047 , at *2 (holding that stay of discovery pending appeal was necessary to 21 prevent irreparable harm to defendant – the loss of speed and economy associated with arbitration); 22 Alsacom v. ITT N. Elec. Co., 727 F.2d 1419 , 1422 (9th Cir. 1984) (same). Further, the Court also 23 has the inherent authority to stay discovery “to control the disposition of the cases on its docket 24 with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., [25] 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). 26 In this case, a stay will promote judicial economy as well as save the parties’ resources. 27 Moreover, there is no indication that any harm will occur from a stay in this matter. As such, the 1] parties respectfully request that this matter be stayed pending the Court’s determination on 2 | Defendant’s Motion to Compel. 3 This requested stay is sought in good faith and not for purposes of causing any undue delay. Dated this 9 day of March, 2020. Dated this 9" day of March, 2020. 5 | LAW OFFICE OF MARK MAUSERT OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. [6] 7 /s/ Mark Mausert /s/ Molly M. Rezac Mark Mausert, Esq. Molly M. Rezac g || Nevada Bar No. 2398 Nevada Bar No. 7435 729 Evans Avenue 50 West Liberty Street, Suite 920 9] Reno, NV 89512 Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: 775.786.5477 Telephone: 775.440.2372 10 Attorney for Plaintiff Meghan Hill Attorney for Defendant PCC Structurals, Inc. ORDER [12] g IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 f ( : 7 a 8 ee A — 33g UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 15 DATED: March 11, 2020 "18