17 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 195,191 times   262 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the sufficiency of the allegations is a legal question so appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider it on appeal from denial of qualified immunity
  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 209,562 times   342 Legal Analyses
    Holding that conclusory allegations that the defendants acted unlawfully were insufficient to state a claim
  3. Landis v. North American Co.

    299 U.S. 248 (1936)   Cited 6,290 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a decision to stay proceedings "calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance"
  4. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc.

    278 F.R.D. 597 (D. Nev. 2011)   Cited 382 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting a stay of discovery in part because the plaintiff did "not claim that it needs any discovery to oppose the motion to dismiss," which "raise[d] no factual issues, and [would] be decided purely on issues of law."
  5. Little v. City of Seattle

    863 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1988)   Cited 625 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by staying discovery pending the resolution of one issue if discovery would not affect a decision on that issue
  6. Wood v. McEwen

    644 F.2d 797 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 263 times
    Holding that Plaintiff's allegation of perjury did not raise an issue of extrinsic fraud
  7. Wenger v. Monroe

    282 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 98 times
    Holding that, in order for estoppel to be applied to the government, the government must have engaged in "affirmative misconduct going beyond mere negligence"
  8. Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Shell Oil Co.

    626 F.2d 549 (7th Cir. 1980)   Cited 126 times
    Affirming dismissal of Sherman Act claim and agreeing with district court observation that "it is hard to ignore the suspicion that the facts have been forced into an antitrust mold to achieve federal jurisdiction"
  9. Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging America Inc.

    No. 2:10-cv-02630 JAM KJN (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011)   Cited 35 times
    In Mlejnecky, the defendant filed a motion for a protective order seeking to stay the exchange of initial disclosures and discovery in the case due to a pending motion to dismiss.
  10. Trzaska v. International Game Technology

    Case No. 2:10-cv-02268-JCM-GWF (D. Nev. Mar. 29, 2011)   Cited 13 times

    Case No. 2:10-cv-02268-JCM-GWF. March 29, 2011 ORDER Motion to Stay Discovery — #15 GEORGE FOLEY JR., Magistrate Judge This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Emergency Motion to Stay Discovery (#15), filed on March 3, 2011; Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' Emergency Motion to Stay Discovery (#18), filed on March 14, 2011; and Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Emergency Motion to Stay Discovery (#19), filed on March 17, 2011. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Edward Trzaska, who is proceeding in proper

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 72,226 times   539 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
  12. Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1   Cited 11,250 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that the Rules of Civil Procedure "should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding."