Serotta v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 2:25-cv-00471

Multiple related cases were filed by the same law firm, Kind Law, against the same defendant, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, all alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for disclosure of debt information to a third-party mailing vendor.
The cases include nearly identical factual allegations and legal claims, centering on 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b), and were consolidated before the same district and magistrate judge in the District of Nevada.
Plaintiffs moved to remand cases to state court; defendant moved to dismiss all cases.
Defendant requested stays of discovery in several cases pending the Court’s rulings on dispositive motions; plaintiffs objected.
The Court considered whether to stay discovery in all pending related actions — including those without a formal stay request — based on its inherent authority and court rules.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether to stay discovery pending resolution of dispositive motions	Discovery is straightforward and inexpensive; no undue burden; delay is prejudicial.	Likelihood of success on motions to dismiss; discovery would be costly and burdensome; subject matter jurisdiction is contested.	Stay granted in all cases, based on good cause and judicial efficiency.

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (federal courts have broad inherent power to stay proceedings for judicial economy)
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (affirming district court's broad discretion to stay discovery as part of docket management)
Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681 (district court’s broad discretion in controlling discovery)
Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797 (endorsing court’s preliminary review to assess likelihood of dispositive success)