Alps Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Levine Law Grp.

• Decision Date: 08 July 2022
• Docket Number: 3:22-cv-00160-MMD-CSD
• Parties: ALPS PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. LEVINE LAW GROUP, INC, et al., Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

ALPS PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff
v.
LEVINE LAW GROUP, INC, et al., Defendants

No. 3:22-cv-00160-MMD-CSD

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 8, 2022

ORDER RE: ECF NO. 19

Craig S. Denney United States Magistrate Judge.

Before the court is Defendants Levine Law Group, Inc.'s and Ira S. Levine's (collectively, Levine) motion to stay discovery pending the issuance of an order on their motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff ALPS Property & Casualty Insurance Company (ALPS) filed a response. (ECF No. 21.) The court heard oral argument on the motion at a hearing on July 6, 2022 (ECF No. 22), and issues the instant Order denying Levine's motion.

I. BACKGROUND

ALPS filed this insurance coverage action for declaratory relief that it does not owe a duty to defend or indemnify Levine with respect to a claim brought by The Parking REIT, Inc. (TPR), MVP Realty Advisors, LLC (MVP), and Michael V. Shustek (collectively, the Shustek parties) in a lawsuit pending in the Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada in and for Clark County, The Parking REIT, Inc., et al. v. Ira S. Levine, No. A-20-808902-C (the underlying action). Levine represented the Shustek parties in connection with TPR's attempt to become a publicly traded company. In the underlying action, the Shustek parties allege that Levine was their counsel as well as general counsel, chief administrative officer, and chief operating officer of MVP. The Shustek parties assert claims for legal malpractice; breach of

1

fiduciary duty; breach of confidential relationship; interference with prospective economic relations; defamation per se; business disparagement; false light; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and declaratory relief.

In this action, ALPS seeks a declaration that the policy does not afford Levine coverage because it specifically excludes coverage for any claim arising from or in connection with professional services rendered to an organization where the insured (Levine) was an officer, director or employee or other fiduciary of the organization or served in any capacity to control, operate or manage the organization. (ECF No. 1.)

Levine has filed a motion to dismiss, or, alternatively, to transfer venue to the unofficial southern division of the District of Nevada. Levine argues there is no plausible claim for complete denial of defense and indemnity where the underlying action alleges wrongful conduct and injuries that are not subject to the exclusion mentioned in ALPS' complaint. Levine further argues the court should exercise its discretion to dismiss this action under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the request for declaratory relief on the duty to indemnify is not ripe because there has not been a judgment in the underlying malpractice action. (ECF No. 12.) The motion to dismiss is fully briefed and pending before Chief District Judge Miranda Du.

Levine now seeks an order staying discovery pending the issuance of an order by Chief Judge Du on the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 19.)

II. DISCUSSION

“Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery.” Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013) (citation omitted). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Instead, a party

2

seeking to stay discovery carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing why discovery should be denied.” Id. (citation omitted). At the outset, courts are guided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 to ensure a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”

In addition, courts within the District of Nevada utilize the following criteria in determining whether to...