United States District Court, D. Utah
District Judge Jill Parrish
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
QUASH AND TO STAY DISCOVERY
C. Wells United States Magistrate Judge
Defendant Scott Van Rixel moves to quash discovery served
upon him by Defendants because “jurisdiction before
this Court has not been established.” On December 5,
2016, Van Rixel filed a motion to dismiss asserting a lack of
personal jurisdiction. That motion is still pending before the
Rixel argues he is not a party to this action until
jurisdiction is established and presumably until after the
motion to dismiss is resolved. In the motion to dismiss Van
Rixel asserts that service was untimely and beyond the time
allowed by Rule 4(m). A third party complaint was filed against
Van Rixel on May 4, 2016. A summons was issued on that same date
and that summons was personally served on Van Rixel November
15, 2016. Third-Party Plaintiff Mentor Capital, Inc.
argues service of a summons “establishes personal
jurisdiction over the served party.”
court agrees with Mentor that the presumption is service of a
summons establishes personal jurisdiction over a served
party, but this presumption relies upon timely service in
accordance with Rule 4(m) and is rebuttable. “Questions
of jurisdiction should be resolved at the earliest stages of
litigation, so as to conserve the time and resources of the
Court and the parties. Thus, a stay of discovery during the
pendency of a dispositive motion asserting a jurisdictional
challenge may be appropriate and
efficient.” The Supreme Court has noted the burdens
that discovery may cause when there are outstanding questions
regarding absolute immunity. Here, there are no questions
regarding absolute immunity but there are jurisdictional
questions and those questions from time to time may also
warrant a stay of discovery.
the undersigned believes there are some serious questions
regarding whether or not Van Rixel attempted to avoid
service, based upon the instant facts the court finds a
temporary stay of discovery toward Van Rixel is proper until
the jurisdictional question is resolved. The court will
therefore grant the motion to quash and to stay
discovery. When the question regarding jurisdiction
is resolved Mentor may move the court to extend discovery as
to Van Rixel.
therefore ordered that Counter-claim Defendant Scott Van
Rixel's Motion to Quash and Stay Discovery until
jurisdiction has been decided is GRANTED.
 Motion to Quash p. 2, docket no.
 Docket no. 79.
 Motion to Dismiss p. 2, docket no.