Cave v. JPM Chase Bank Investments Division, 2:16-cv-01806

Plaintiff Chris Harold Cave filed a complaint asserting RICO fraud, FDCPA, TCPA, and quiet title claims on July 6, 2016.
Defendant JPM Chase Bank Investments Division moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing failure to state a claim and that claims are barred by issue and claim preclusion; that motion is pending.
JPM Chase separately moved to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss; Plaintiff did not file any opposition to the stay motion.
The court reviewed the legal standards for stays of discovery and Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, including the Ninth Circuit’s broad discovery-control authority and the “preliminary peek” framework from Kor Media Group.
The court concluded the motion to dismiss is potentially dispositive, can be decided without discovery, and that a preliminary peek at the merits supports dismissal; it also noted Local Rule 7-2(d) treats failure to respond as consent.
The court granted the stay; the stay will lift automatically if the motion to dismiss is denied in whole or in part, and the parties then have 14 days to file a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery should be stayed pending resolution of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion	No opposition filed; effectively no argument in opposition	A stay is proper because the motion is potentially dispositive, can be decided without discovery, and has merit (claims precluded/failure to state a claim)	Stay granted; will lift if motion to dismiss is denied in whole or in part
Whether plaintiff's failure to respond to the stay motion affects the outcome	N/A (no response)	Failure to respond constitutes consent under Local Rule 7-2(d) supporting granting the motion	Court relied on LR 7-2(d) as additional basis to grant the stay

Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1988) (courts have broad discretion to control discovery)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must provide grounds showing entitlement to relief; more than labels and conclusions required)
Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579 (D. Nev. 2013) (framework for evaluating stays pending dispositive motions and the need for a strong showing)
Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597 (D. Nev. 2011) (Rule 12(b)(6) allows challenge to legal sufficiency without discovery)
Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Employers of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652 (D. Nev. 1989) (dispositive motions ordinarily do not warrant a stay of discovery)
Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554 (D. Nev. 1997) (same)
Skellerup Indus. Ltd. v. City of L.A., 163 F.R.D. 598 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (no automatic/blanket stays when dispositive motions pending)
Tracy v. United States, 243 F.R.D. 662 (D. Nev. 2007) (Rule 12(b)(6) focuses on sufficiency of pleadings, not on whether plaintiff could later find supporting evidence)