`
`Civil Action No. 22-22706-Civ-Scola
`
`
`
`
`United States District Court
`for the
`Southern District of Florida
`
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HMD America, Inc., and others,
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`Order Granting Partial Stay
`This matter is before the Court on the motion to stay proceedings as to
`Defendant Unisoc Technologies Co. Ltd. (“Unisoc”)1. (Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 115.)
`Unisoc seeks a stay of discovery and other proceedings against it in this matter
`while the Court considers Unisoc’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal
`jurisdiction. (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 91.) Plaintiff Bell Northern Research, LLC
`has not responded in opposition to the motion to stay, and the time to do so has
`passed. Accordingly, the Court grants Unisoc’s motion to stay. (ECF No. 115.)
`Because the Plaintiff has not responded to the motion to stay, the Court
`may treat the motion as unopposed and grant the motion by default. See Local
`Rule 7.1(c) (“each party opposing a motion shall file and serve an opposing
`memorandum of law no later than fourteen (14) days after service of the motion.
`Failure to do so may be deemed sufficient cause for granting the motion by
`default.”); see also, e.g., Bradshaw v. Integon Nat'l Ins. Co., No. 19-24806-CIV,
`2019 WL 6716364, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2019) (Scola, J.) (“Bradshaw’s
`failure to respond to the complaint constitutes an independent basis to dismiss
`the complaint.”).
`Additionally, the Court observes that Unisoc’s motion to dismiss meets the
`requirements of Federal Rule of Procedure 26(c). “To stay discovery under Rule
`26(c) due to a pending dispositive motion, ‘good cause and reasonableness’ must
`exist.” United States v. Med-Care Diabetic & Med. Supplies, Inc., No. 10-81634-
`CIV, 2014 WL 12284078, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 17, 2014) (Ryskamp, J.) (citing
`McCabe v. Foley, 233 F.R.D. 683, 685 (M.D. Fla. 2006)). This determination
`requires “the Court to take a ‘preliminary peek’ at the merits of the motion to
`dismiss to see if it appears to be clearly meritorious and truly case dispositive.”
`Id. When a motion to dismiss will likely dispose of a case, courts may grant a
`motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. See, e.g.,
`
`1 The Court has already dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Hon Hai Precision
`Industry Co., Ltd. and Spreadtrum Communications USA, Inc., which had joined in the motion to
`stay.
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2023 Page 2 of 2
`
`Tradex Glob. Master Fund SPC Ltd. v. Palm Beach Cap. Mgmt., LLC, No. 09-21622-
`CIV, 2009 WL 10664410, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 24, 2009) (Moreno, J.) (“While the
`Court has not yet ruled on the motions to dismiss, a cursory review of those
`motions suggests that a short stay of discovery is appropriate. The venue issue is
`a threshhold legal issue that is case-dispositive. It is appropriate to stay discovery
`pending resolution of a motion to dismiss where such an issue is raised.”).
`Here, Unisoc’s motion to dismiss raises a threshold legal issue: the motion
`asserts that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Unisoc. (Mot. to Dismiss at
`1.) Unisoc also supports this motion with a jurisdictional declaration. (Decl. of Z.
`Zhang, ECF No. 91-1.) Upon a cursory review (without resolving the motion to
`dismiss), the motion appears to be at least meritorious and case dispositive. A
`short stay of discovery is therefore appropriate here. Tradex, 2009 WL 10664410,
`at *1.
`For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Defendant Unisoc’s motion
`to stay. (ECF No. 115.) The Court stays all proceedings against Defendant Unisoc
`until the Court resolves Unisoc’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 91.) This case will
`otherwise remain open because the Plaintiff continues to assert claims against
`the other Defendants.
`Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on February 8, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________________________________
`Robert N. Scola, Jr.
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
