Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 7, 2019

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Koeppel

Judge
Edward Davila
Docket
5:18-cv-03443
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems v. Koeppel, Judge Davila granted a motion staying discovery while dispositive motions were pending.

Who this affects

The parties to the case were affected because the court stayed discovery while the pending motions were being considered.

What happened

In Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Koeppel, the plaintiffs asked the court to pause discovery until it ruled on their pending motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion to dismiss a third-party complaint. The Koeppels opposed the request.

The court found that the pending motions could resolve the case and could be decided without additional discovery. It therefore stayed discovery while those motions remained pending.

The court granted the ex parte motion for a protective order, and Judge Davila said the court could consider a request to extend discovery after ruling on the pending motions if appropriate.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Koeppel · No. 5:18-cv-03443
Judge
Edward Davila
Date
Oct. 7, 2019

Background

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Nationstar Mortgage LLC, U.S. Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo, N.A. moved for a protective order staying discovery. They asked the court to pause discovery while it considered a pending motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. Those motions were scheduled for a hearing on October 17, 2019. The Koeppels opposed the motion.

Court’s reasoning

The court stated that a district court has broad discretion to stay discovery while a dispositive motion is pending. It found that the pending motions were case-dispositive and could be resolved without further discovery.

Ruling

The court granted the ex parte motion for a protective order and stayed discovery pending its ruling on the pending motions. The court also stated that, if appropriate, it would consider a motion to extend discovery after ruling on those motions.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.