Spectacular Properties LLC v. Nevada Property 1, LLC

1 || Alex L. Fugazzi, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 9022 2 || V.R. Bohman, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13075 3 || Christian P. Ogata, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 15612 4 || SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 5 || Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Telephone: 702.784.5200 6 || Facsimile: 702.784.5252 Email: afugazzi@swlaw.com 7 vbohman@swlaw.com cogata@swlaw.com [8] Attorneys for Defendant Nevada Property 1 LLC [9] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [10] DISTRICT OF NEVADA 1] SPECTACULAR PROPERTIES LLC, a || Wyoming LLC; and FARIDEH AFRAND, | : 2 13 Plaintiffs Case No. 2:22-cv-00517-JCM-BNW 14 Il vs. [Proposed] Stipulated Discovery Plan and 5222 Scheduling Order 2212 15 || NEVADA PROPERTY 1, LLC, a Delaware LLC; THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT an 16 || COURT; CLARK COUNTY OFFICE of Special Scheduling Review Requested 2 RECORDER, A division of Clark County; and ° 17 || Does 1 to 20, 18 Defendants [19] 20 On June 14, 2022, plaintiffs Spectacular Properties and Farideh Afrand’s counsel, 21 || Christopher Keller, Esq., and defendant Nevada Property 1, LLC’s (“NP1”) counsel, Christian 22 || Ogata, Esq., attended an audio-visual conference under Federal Rule 26(f).' The parties, through 23 || their undersigned counsel, propose the following Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order 24 || in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and Local Rule 26-1: 25 1. Reasons for requesting special scheduling review: 26 Plaintiffs sue NP1 and the Eighth Judicial District Court to declare two orders entered by 27 || ———— ' Counsel for the Clark County Office of Recorder also attended the conference, but that party has 8 |! since been dismissed from this matter. See ECF No. 39. A886-5772-0870 1 || the Eighth Judicial District Court void and unenforceable. They also bring claims for extrinsic fraud 2 || and for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . They allege that the Eighth Judicial District Court erred when 3 || it found that non-party Richard Afrand was the owner of four properties and applied them in 4 || satisfaction of a debt that Richard owes NP1. 5 NP1 moves to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because it 6 || contends that they all hinge on an issue that was decided by the state court and are barred by issue 7 || preclusion. Given the dispositive nature of that motion, the parties seek a standard 180-day 8 || discovery plan that begins 14 days after the district court’s resolution of NP1’s motion to dismiss. 9 || The parties agree that staying discovery pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss is the most 10 || cost-effective and efficient way to proceed in this case. Following resolution of the dismissal 11 |} motion, the parties propose submitting an updated discovery plan and scheduling order for this 2 12 |} Court’s review to complete discovery in this matter. | ie 13 This Court may enter the parties proposed scheduling order because no discovery 1s I 14 |} necessary to resolve the dismissal motion and good cause exists to begin discovery following 1 15 |} resolution of the motion. The parties’ proposal effectuates the purpose of both Local Rule 1-1, | 16 |} which requires attorneys “to work toward prompt completion of each case and to minimize 17 || litigation expense,” as well as Federal Rule 1’s mandate to “construe[]” the federal rules “to secure 18 || the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”? 19 A. No discovery is necessary to resolve the motion to dismiss. 20 Rule 12(b)(6) tests the adequacy of the allegations in a complaint.’ By nature, discovery is 21 || unnecessary to resolve Rule 12(b)(6) motions.° As judges in this district have explained, “the court [24] 23 | 2 LR 1-1(b). 26 || > Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; see Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). 97 || * Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). 28 > Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US. 662, 678-79 (holding that a plaintiff may not “unlock the doors of discovery .. . armed with nothing more than conclusions”). A886-5772-0870 nA 1 || asks only whether the pleadings are sufficient to establish a claim, not whether the [p]laintiff could 2 || find evidence to support the pleadings.’® Thus, NP1’s motion may be resolved without discovery. [3] B. Good cause exists to begin discovery following resolution of the dismissal 4 motion. 5 As this Court has held, good cause to stay discovery pending resolution of a motion to 6 || dismiss may “exist based on other factors unrelated to the merits of the dispositive motion.””’ Those 7 || factors may include the “undue burden or expense” of discovery,® or any other factor that shows 8 || that it may be “more just to delay or limit discovery and other proceedings to accomplish the 9 || inexpensive determination of the case.”? Local Rule 1-1(b) instructs parties to consider a host of 10 || means to reduce costs of litigation, including “limiting and phasing discovery.” The Parties propose 11 || staying, and therefore limiting, discovery in this matter pending resolution to reduce the costs of 2 12 litigation. | ie 13 If the district court grants NP1’s motion, it will dispose of this matter. If required to engage | 14 in costly discovery while that motion is pending, the parties will in effect have restarted the 1 15 |} discovery process on an issue that, the district court may ultimately find, was already decided by | 16 }} another court. The parties also recognize the heightened costs of discovery in this matter. At least 17 || one plaintiff lives out of the country, and other witnesses identified by the plaintiffs live out of 18 |} Nevada, which will likely increase the costs of depositions in this matter. Given the claims at issue 19 || in this matter, the ongoing state court appeal of the decisions at issue in this action,!” as well as the 20 || basis underlying NP1’s motion to dismiss, good cause exists to enter the parties’ proposed 21 || discovery plan, and stay discovery pending resolution of the dismissal motion. [22] 23 | 6 Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 (D. Nev. 2013) (quoting Tracy v. United 94 || States, 243 F.R.D. 662, 664 (D. Nev. 2007)). 35 ovchrader □□ Las Vegas, LLC, 2:19-cv-02159-JCM-BNW, 2021 WL 4810324 at *4 (D. Nev. 26 || * Page v. Shumaker Mallory, LLP, No. 2:21-cv-02002-KJD-BNW, 2022 WL 1308286 , at *3 (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 2022). ° Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). 28 |! 10 See Afrand v. Nev. Prop. 1, LLC, No. 84103-COA (Nev. Ct. App.). A886-5772-0870 _ 1 OL. Changes in timing, form or requirement for FRCP 26(a) disclosures: 2 Notwithstanding any stay of discovery in this matter, the parties will exchange their initial 3 || disclosures under Federal Rule 26(a) on or before June 28, 2022. 4 || II. Discovery plan 5 A. Discoverable Matters: 6 Discovery may be conducted on all discoverable matters relevant to issues raised by the 7 || complaint, answer, defenses, any counterclaims, and any subsequent pleadings, consistent with the 8 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the District of Nevada. 9 B. Deadlines: 10 The parties request a standard 180-day discovery plan that begins 14 days following 11 }} resolution of NP1’s motion to dismiss. The parties agree to submit an updated plan for this Court’s 2 12 || review should the district court deny the motion to dismiss. 180 days from the date of 7 15 Discovery cut-off date submission of the updated | discovery plan 16 Amending the pleadings and 90 days before the close of 7 adding parties discover Expert disclosures 60 days before the discovery cut18 off cate Rebuttal expert disclosures 30 days after disclosure of expert 19 disclosures . □□ . 30 days after the discovery cut- 1 Pretrial order 30 days after the dispositivemotion deadline [22] 23 || IV. Other items 24 A. Alternative Dispute Resolution: 25 Under LR 26-1(b)(7), the parties certify that they discussed the possibility of using 26 || alternative dispute resolution. The parties discussed the possibility and will not pursue alternative 27 || dispute resolution at this time. [28] A886-5772-0870 ] B. Alternative Forms of Case Disposition: 2 Under LR 26-1(b)(8), the parties certify that they considered and do not consent to trial by 3 || a magistrate judge or use of the Short Trial Program at this time. 4 C. Electronic Evidence: 5 Under LR 26-1(b)(9), the parties certify that they have discussed whether they intend to 6 || present evidence in electronic format to jurors for the purposes of jury deliberations and did not 7 || reach any stipulations regarding providing discovery in an electronic format compatible with the 8 || court’s electronic jury evidence display system. The parties intend to revisit the presentation of 9 || evidence in electronic format to the jury for the purposes of jury deliberations in advance of filing 10 || of the joint pretrial order, and the parties anticipate setting forth any stipulations reached as a result 11 |} of those discussions in the joint pretrial order or other submission submitted at the same time as the 2 12 || joint pretrial order. | ie 13 D. Later Appearing Parties: I 14 A copy of this discovery plan and scheduling order shall be served on any person served 15 || after it 1s entered, or, if an additional defendant should appear, within five days of their first | 16 |} appearance. This discovery plan and scheduling order shall apply to such later-appearing parties, 17 |} unless the Court, on motion and for good cause shown orders otherwise. 18 E. Issues about disclosure, discovery, or preservation of ESI: 19 None. [28] A886-5772-0870 . 1 F. Additional orders 2 At this time, the parties do not seek a confidentiality and protective order but may seek one 3 || following resolution of the motion to dismiss. [4] Dated: June 24, 2022 Dated: June 24, 2022 [5] SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. HAWKINS MELENDREZ, P.C. [7] By: /s/ Christian P. Ogata By: /s/ Christopher M. Keller 8 Alex L. Fugazzi, Esq. Christopher M. Keller, Esq. V.R. Bohman, Esq. 9555 Hillwood Drive, Suite 150 9 Christian P. Ogata, Esq. Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 10 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Attorney for Plaintiffs 1] Attorneys for Defendant Nevada Property 1 LLC [12] | 2248 15 Sree [19] 20 ORDER >] IT IS ORDERED that ECF No. 40 is GRANTED. [22] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an updated 23 Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order is due 14 4 days after ECF Nos. 18 and 26 are decided. 25 DATED: 5:56 pm, June 29, 2022 Zag mba ety 2 6 moe wena JUDGE [28] A886-5772-0870 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on the date below, I electronically transmitted the foregoing Proposed 3 || Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for 4 || filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to all counsel in this matter; all counsel being 5 || registered to receive Electronic Filing. 6 || DATED this 24" day of June, 2022 [7] /s/ D’Andrea Dunn 8 ‘An employee of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. [10] 1] g 12 | ie 13 [28] A886-5772-0870