Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01162/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01162-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

Case No. 3:16-cv-1162-JLS-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LG CORPORATION, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

HUANG XIAOWEN DBA TOPUUSHOP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-1162-JLS-NLS

ORDER GRANTING JOINT 

MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY 

PENDING RESOLUTION OF N&K 

TRADING’S MOTION TO DISMISS

(Dkt. No. 133)

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ and Defendant N&K Trading, Inc.’s Joint Motion 

to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of N&K Trading’s Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 

No. 133.) N&K Trading argues a stay of discovery is warranted because the motion

to dismiss is potentially dispositive and, if granted, would dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims 

against it. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs strongly disagree that N&K Trading’s motion has any 

likelihood of success, but argues a stay is nonetheless warranted because it will 

conserve the parties’ resources. (Id. at 3.)

Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See Little v. City of 

Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). A pending dispositive motion by itself is 

not enough to justify a stay of discovery; however, stays may be appropriate when 

jurisdiction, venue or immunity are at issue. Ciuffitelli v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 

2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163546, *14-*16 (D. Or. Nov. 28, 2016). Courts may also 

Case 3:16-cv-01162-JLS-NLS Document 135 Filed 02/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 Case No. 3:16-cv-1162-JLS-NLS

employ different methods and evaluate factors to determine whether a stay is 

appropriate. See Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 602 (D. Nev. 2011).

In considering the parties’ arguments and evaluating factors relevant to the 

present inquiry, the Court finds good cause to issue an order staying discovery. The 

Court took a preliminary peek at N&K’s pending motion to dismiss, and notes that the 

motion raises challenges to personal jurisdiction. Additionally, given Plaintiffs’ and 

N&K’s representations that they are the only remaining active litigants in the case 

because the rest have either defaulted or settled, a stay on discovery would not appear

to affect any other parties. A stay of discovery will also conserve the parties’

resources, and Plaintiffs state they would not be prejudiced by a stay because they 

may immediately resume discovery if N&K Trading’s motion is denied. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion. It is ORDERED

that discovery is STAYED pending a ruling on N&K Trading, Inc.’s Motion to 

Dismiss. The parties must contact the undersigned’s chambers within three days of a 

ruling to discuss whether any dates and deadlines in the scheduling order need to be 

reset.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01162-JLS-NLS Document 135 Filed 02/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2