Summary
The court grants defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of their motions to compel arbitration. The court concludes that the arbitration motions are potentially dispositive, can be decided without further discovery, and that the balance of case-management factors supports a stay.
Holdings
- A stay of discovery is warranted where the pending motions to compel arbitration are potentially dispositive and can be resolved without additional discovery, and the balance of efficiency and prejudice considerations supports a stay.
- The defendants' motions to compel arbitration were sufficiently potentially dispositive to support a stay of discovery.
- The second prong of the discovery-stay test was satisfied because the fully briefed arbitration motions could be resolved without further discovery.
Questions Presented
- Whether discovery should be stayed pending resolution of defendants' motions to compel arbitration.
- Whether the pending arbitration motions were potentially dispositive of the action.
- Whether the arbitration motions could be decided without additional discovery.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (15)
- Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
- Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997)(followed)
- Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005)(followed)
- Salazar v. Honest Tea, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-02318 KJM EFB, 2015 WL 6537813, at *1, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146357, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 2015)(followed)
- Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging Am., Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv-02630 JAM KJN, 2011 WL 489743, at *9, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16128, at *28, *32 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011)(followed)
- Yamasaki v. Zicam LLC, No. 21-cv-0259 HSG, 2021 WL 3675214, at *1, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157156, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2021)(followed)
- Skellerup Industries Limited v. City of Los Angeles, 163 F.R.D. 598, 601 (C.D. Cal. 1995)(followed)
- Williams v. Experian, Case No. CV-23-01076-PHX-DWL, 2024 WL 73396767, at *3, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31078, at *9–10 (D. Ariz. Feb. 23, 2024)(followed)
- Stavrianoudakis v. U.S. Department of Fish & Wildlife, No. 1:18-CV-01505 LJO BAM, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219337, 2019 WL 9667685, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019)(followed)
- Trucmai Huynh v. Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Co., No. 1:24-cv-0157 KES EPG, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93414, at *6, 2024 WL 2883228 (E.D. Cal. 2024)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 15.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…