green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
58.0 score
“ince the appellants' conduct did not raise 15 factual issues that required discovery for their resolution, the district court did not abuse its 16 discretion in staying discovery pending a hearing on the motion to dismiss.”
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States Department Of Justice v. State of Nevada
ince the appellants' conduct did not raise 15 factual issues that required discovery for their resolution, the district court did not abuse its 16 discretion in staying discovery pending a hearing on the motion to dismiss.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
M. v. Crum
since the appellants' complaint did not raise factual issues that required discovery for their resolution, the district court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery pending a hearing on the motion to dismiss.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Kramer v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
discovery is only 11 appropriate where there are factual issues raised by a rule 12(b) motion.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Nevada Restaurant Servs., Inc. v. Clark County
discovery is only appropriate where there are factual issues raised. . . .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Goudarzi v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA
Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th 5 Cir. 1987); Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wasae v. Blinken
The two issues presented in 13 the motion is (1) whether Wasae has claimed an outstanding mandatory, nondiscretionary duty 14 that Defendants have failed to perform, and, if so, (2) whether Defendants have unreasonably 15 delayed performing that duty. 16 ARGUMENT 17 A stay would conserve the Court’s and parties’ resources while the Court considers the pending dispositive motion. 18 This Court has wide discretion to stay discovery while a dispositive motion is pending. 19 Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1984); Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th 20 Cir. 1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Amazon Prime Video Litigation
Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th 9 Cir. 1987); see Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Zhang v. Dehart
For good cause, the parties request that the 22 Court stay discovery until after this motion is decided. 23 This Court has wide discretion to stay discovery while a motion to dismiss is pending. 24 Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1984); Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th 1 Cir. 1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Barbara Jo Thurman Carr v. Brian Cota
P. 15(a)(1)(B); Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stauffer v. Matarazzo
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. (citing Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987) and Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 1981)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hold Security LLC v. Microsoft Inc
(2×)
“Discovery is only appropriate where there are factual issues 2 raised by a Rule 12(b) motion.” Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987). 3 Critically, these comments are dicta from the Ninth Circuit in cases where it affirmed the 4 district court’s exercise of its discretion in staying discovery.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Quinn v. Austin
Wash. May 12, 2022) (citing Jarvis 7 v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 8 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Snake River Waterkeeper v. J.R. Simplot Company
(2×)
Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Duane E. Anderson AND Jeanne C. Anderson
Civil Rule 56(d) provides a right to discovery before a court rules on a summary judgment motion if the nonmoving party “cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.” In Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir.1987), the Ninth Circuit affirmed that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery when the complaint did not raise factual issues requiring discovery to resolve.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
HUB International Northwest LLC v. Larson
Finally, 22 “[d]iscovery is only appropriate where there are factual issues raised by a Rule 12(b) motion.” 23 24 2 At the time of Plaintiff’s opposition brief (March 1, 2023), the deadline for joinder of parties had not yet passed. 1 Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Penn v. Warden of Kern Valley State Prison
(2×)
No. 67 at 3-4)(citing Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1 1162, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 2014), Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987)). 2 The Court is vested with broad discretion to stay a case.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Renovich v. Amazon.com, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The cited Ninth Circuit cases hold that a 4 district court does not abuse its discretion in staying discovery when the dispositive motion does 5 not require discovery, see Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987),11 but that a district 6 court abuses its discretion in staying discovery if it is necessary to decide the dispositive motion, 7 see Alaska Cargo Transp., Inc. v. Alaska R.R.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Zeiger v. Hotel California By The Sea LLC
Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987); Little v. 22 City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Winters v. Loan Depot LLC
“Staying discovery pending resolution of a motion to 17 dismiss is permissible when the motion raises only legal issues.” Lazar, 2014 WL 18 12551210 at *1 (citing Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987); Rae v. Union 19 Bank, 725 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1984)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of Gabriel Strickland v. Nevada County
Cal. July 15, 2019) (citing, inter alia, Alaska Cargo Transport, Inc. v. Alaska R.R. 21 Corp., 5 F.3d 378, 383 (9th Cir. 1993); Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987)). 22 Judge Mueller noted that the Ninth Circuit often employs a two-part test: delaying discovery may 23 be appropriate if: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive of the case, or at least would 24 render unnecessary the discovery at issue; and (2) the pending motion can be decided absent 25 additional discovery.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Shoshone Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation v. United States of America
Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Corbrus, LLC v. 8th Bridge Capital, Inc.
The Supreme Court has “stressed the importance of the finding of a ‘pattern of racketeering activity,’ as distinguished from just a finding of the commission of two of the predicate acts.” Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 153 (9th Cir. 1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ahern Rentals Inc v. Mendenhall
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th 16 Cir. 1987); see Little v. City of Seattle, 863.F2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cellwitch Inc. v. Tile, Inc.
The Court has discretion to stay 1 Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797 , 801 2 (9th Cir. 1981) (good cause to stay discovery may exist where a court is “convinced that the 3 plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ali v. Carnegie Institution of Washington
Corp., 5 F.3d 378, 383 (9th Cir. 1993) (affirming a district court’s stay of discovery when there was no indication “the discovery sought was relevant to whether or not the court has subject matter jurisdiction”); Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming a district court’s stay of discovery when the complaint “did not raise factual issues that required discovery for their resolution”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matot v. CH
To state a claim under RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., plaintiff must allege that he has been injured by “(1) conduct, (2) of an enterprise, (3) through a pattern, (4) of racketeering activity.” Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 151-52 (9th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ali v. Carnegie Institution of Washington
(2×)
Corp., 5 F.3d 378, 383 (9th Cir.1993) (affirming a district court’s stay of discovery when there was no indication “the discovery sought was relevant to whether or not the court has subject matter jurisdiction”); Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir.1987) (affirming a district court’s stay of discovery when the complaint “did not raise factual issues that required discovery for their resolution”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ali v. Carnegie Institution of Washington
Corp., 5 F.3d 378, 383 (9th Cir. 1993) (affirming a district court’s stay of discovery when there was no indication “the discovery sought was relevant to whether or not the court has subject matter jurisdiction”); Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming a district court’s stay of discovery when the complaint “did not raise factual issues that required discovery for their resolution”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ministerio Roca Solida v. United States Department of Fish & Wildlife
See Alaska Cargo Transport, Inc. v. Alaska R.R., Corp., 5 F.3d 378, 383 (9th Cir.1993) (stating the district court would have abused its discretion in staying discovery if the discovery was relevant to whether or not the court had subject matter jurisdiction); Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir.1987) (holding district court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery when the complaint did not raise factual issues requiring discovery to resolve); Kamm v. Cal. City Dev.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc.
Corp., 5 F.3d 378, 383 (9th Cir.1993) (stating the district court would have abused its discretion in staying discovery if the discovery was relevant to whether or not the court had subject matter jurisdiction); Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir.1987) (holding district court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery when the complaint did not raise factual issues requiring discovery to resolve); Kamm v. Cal. City Dev.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sussex Financial Enterprises, Inc. v. Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank AG
The four elements of a RICO violation are: “(1) conduct, (2) of an enterprise, (3) through a pattern, and (4) of racketeering activity.” Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 151-52 (9th Cir.1987) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
CONCORDE EQUITY II, LLC v. Miller
Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 151 (9th Cir.1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Netflix Antitrust Litigation
Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bowoto v. Chevron Corp.
In order to succeed on a RICO claim under § 1962(c), a plaintiff must show “(1) conduct, (2) of an enterprise, (3) through a pattern, (4) of racketeering activity.” Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 151-52 (9th Cir.1987) (citations omitted). 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (d) makes unlawful conspiracy to violate any of the provisions of § 1962. “[I]f the section 1962(c) claim does not state an action upon which relief could ever be granted, regardless of the evidence, then the section 1962(d) claim cannot be entertained.” Neibel v. Trans World Assurance Co., 108 F.3d 1123, 1127 (9th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shirish Wagh v. Metris Direct, Inc. Metris Direct Services, Inc. Metris Companies, Inc. Directalert
As the court noted in its order granting the first motion to dismiss, dis *1111 covery at the pleadings stage is only appropriate where factual issues are raised by a Rule 12(b) motion, (citing Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir.1987)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shirish Wagh v. Metris Direct, Inc. Metris Direct Services, Inc. Metris Companies, Inc. Directalert
As the court noted in its order granting the first motion to dismiss, discovery at the pleadings stage is only appropriate where factual issues are raised by a Rule 12(b) motion, (citing Jarvis v. *830 Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir.1987)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Leal v. Tombone
Shabazz v. Carroll, 833 F.2d 149, 149 (9th Cir.1987). 20 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Larranaga v. Northwest Defenders Ass'n
Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ricotta v. State of California
See also Medallion Television Enterprises v. SelecTV of California, Inc., 833 F.2d 1360 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 917 , 109 S.Ct. 3241 , 106 L.Ed.2d 588 (1989) (holding that a broadcaster’s misrepresentations that induced a Plaintiff to enter a joint venture did not constitute a pattern of racketeering activity, because the case involved a single victim and a single fraud which was complete once the joint venture acquired the broadcasting rights); Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 152-53 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that the Plaintiff could not establish a pattern of racketeering by all…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Video Tutorial Services, Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corporation
MCI, of course, bears the burden of demonstrating that this controversy is indeed “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 109 , 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1669 , 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983); Haley v. Pataki, 60 F.3d 137, 141 (2d Cir.1995); Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 154 (9th Cir.1987); Sample v. Johnson, 771 F.2d 1335, 1342 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1019, 106 S.Ct. 1206 , 89 L.Ed.2d 319 (1986).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gary Hobson Edward F. Wills Kenneth Lee Krause v. George Sumner
Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985); Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 151-52 (9th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Demuth v. Cirrus Capital Corp.
Furthermore, "[w]here a final judgment is entered following dismissal of an action, the plaintiff['s] ... amendment could be made only by leave of the court." Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Charles H. Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
Right to Amend as a Matter of Course is Terminated by Entry of Final Judgment 26 The right to amend once as a matter of course may be cut off by the filing of a responsive pleading as well as "entry of final judgment following dismissal of [the] action." Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir.1987); Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 607 (9th Cir.1984); Worldwide Church of God, Inc. v. California, 623 F.2d 613, 616 (9th Cir.1980) (quoted in Leipziger 729 F.2d at 607 ); see also, Breier, 316 F.2d at 789, n. 1 and cases cited there; Smith v. California, 336 F.2d 530 (9th Cir.1964) (right to amend…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sprague v. Brook
Co., 391 U.S. 253 , 88 S.Ct. 1575 , 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968) (limitations on general pre-trial discovery not improper if additional discovery would merely amount to a fishing expedition); Landstrom v. Illinois Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 892 F.2d 670 , 674 (7th Cir.1990) (proper to enter order staying discovery pending resolution of qualified immunity claims); Patterson v. United States Postal Sen., 901 F.2d 927, 929 (11th Cir. 1990) (proper to enter order staying discovery pending resolution of motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment concerning interplay of the ADEA and 5 U.S.C…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Leon R. Murray v. Paul Bowlin
Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harold Berg Willard S. Boothby, Jr. Harold C. Stuart A. Alfred Taubman John W. Teets Laurence A. Tisch Henry Wendt v. First State Insurance Company the Harbor Insurance Company, Harold Berg Willard S. Boothby, Jr. Harold C. Stuart A. Alfred Taubman John W. Teets Laurence A. Tisch Henry Wendt v. First State Insurance Company, Harold Berg Willard S. Boothby, Jr. Harold C. Stuart A. Alfred Taubman John W. Teets Laurence A. Tisch Henry Wendt v. First State Insurance Company, and the Harbor Insurance Company
For example, a person physically injured in a fire whose origin was arson is not given a right to recover for his personal injuries; damage to his business or his building is the type of injury for which Sec. 1964(c) permits suit.' 22 Grogan v. Platt, 835 F.2d 844, 847 (11th Cir.1988) (quoting dictum in Bankers Trust Co. v. Rhoades, 741 F.2d 511, 515 (2d Cir.1984), vacated on other grounds, 473 U.S. 922 , 105 S.Ct. 3550 , 87 L.Ed.2d 673 (1985)); Rylewicz v. Beaton Servs., Ltd., 698 F.Supp. 1391, 1396 (N.D.Ill.1988) (emotional distress is a noncompensable personal injury under RICO), aff'd, 888…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Berg v. First State Insurance
For example, a person physically injured in a fire whose origin was arson is not given a right to recover for his personal injuries; damage to his business or his building is the type of injury for which § 1964(c) permits suit.’ Grogan v. Platt, 835 F.2d 844, 847 (11th Cir.1988) (quoting dictum in Bankers Trust Co. v. Rhoades, 741 F.2d 511, 515 (2d Cir.1984), vacated on other grounds, 473 U.S. 922 , 105 S.Ct. 3550 , 87 L.Ed.2d 673 (1985)); Rylewicz v. Beaton Servs., Ltd., 698 F.Supp. 1391, 1396 (N.D.Ill.1988) (emotional distress is a noneompensable personal injury under RICO), aff'd, 888 F.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gutenkauf v. Mills-Jennings Co.
Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. 229 , 109 S.Ct. 2893 , 106 L.Ed.2d 195 (1989); United Energy Owners Comm. v. United States Energy Management, Inc., 837 F.2d 356, 360-61 (9th Cir.1988); Medallion Television Enterprises, Inc., 833 F.2d 1360, 1362-65 (9th Cir.1987); Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 150-53 (9th Cir.1987); Service Engineering Co. v. Southwest Marine, Inc., 719 F.Supp. 1500, 1509 (N.D.Cal.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sam Ferris, Petitioner/plaintiff-Appellant v. Santa Clara County City of San Jose Officer Mason Officer Galea State of California
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir.1987).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lennal Khabir Shabazz
v.
Midge Carroll, Superintendent, California Institution for Men, United States of America, Attorney General of California and Attorney General, United States
v.
Midge Carroll, Superintendent, California Institution for Men, United States of America, Attorney General of California and Attorney General, United States
84-6391.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 25, 1987.
Cited by 5 opinions | Published
Lennal Khabir SHABAZZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Midge CARROLL, Superintendent, California Institution for
Men, United States of America, Attorney General of
California and Attorney General, United
States, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 84-6391.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Nov. 25, 1987.
Lennal Khabir Shabazz, in pro per.
Robert A. Pallemon, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Before MERRILL, GOODWIN and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
[*~149]1
The defendants-appellees' petition for rehearing is granted. That portion of the opinion entered herein on April 10, 1987, 814 F.2d 1321, that gives Shabazz credit for time spent in state prison against Shabazz's federal sentence is vacated. This court lacks jurisdiction to grant such relief.
[*~153]2
The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no active judge had requested a vote on whether to rehearing the matter en banc. (Fed.R.App.P. 35.)
[*~155]3
The suggestion for rehearing en banc is denied.