TORRES
v.
STARBUCKS CORPORATION
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The District Court granted a joint motion by Torres and Starbucks to stay proceedings for 90 days to allow time for early virtual mediation, exercising its broad discretion to manage its docket.
The court granted the joint motion to stay proceedings for 90 days to permit virtual mediation. Virtual mediation is permissible where, as here, the parties agree to it, notwithstanding the local rule preference for in-person mediation.
[1] Trial courts possess broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to their power to control their dockets.
[2] District courts have inherent, discretionary authority to issue stays in many circumstances, and granting a stay to permit mediation is often appropriate.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“trial courts have "broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket."”
Establishes the legal standard for granting stays in civil litigation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTorres and Starbucks filed a joint motion requesting a stay of all proceedings and deadlines for 90 days to conduct early mediation. The parties also …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Case No: 8:20-cv-1311-CEH-TGW
This matter comes before the Court upon the Parties' Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Completion of Virtual Mediation. Doc. 62. The Parties ask that the Court stay all proceedings and deadlines for ninety days to allow them time to conduct an early mediation. Additionally, they ask permission to conduct mediation virtually based on the locations of their representatives and counsel. The Court, having considered the motion and being fully advised in the premises, will grant the Motion.
Trial courts have “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Further, "district courts have inherent, discretionary authority to issue stays in many circumstances, and granting a stay to permit mediation (or to require it) will often be appropriate." Advanced Bodycare Sols., LLC v. Thione Int'l, Inc., 524 F. 3d 1235, 1241 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted)
First, the Parties request permission to mediate virtually and argue that the interests of justice would be served by making mediation more convenient. Doc. 62 at 2. According to Middle District of Florida Local Rule 4.03, mediation is to be inperson "unless otherwise agreed by the parties.” M.D. Fla. L.R. 4.03. Here, the parties agree to virtual mediation—and the Court will thus grant their request. In its discretion, the Court will also grant the Parties' request for a ninety-day stay of proceedings so that they can conduct an early mediation.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. The Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Completion of Virtual Mediation (Doc. 62) is GRANTED.
2. This case is STAYED for a period of 90 days. The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines and administratively close the file. Any party may move to lift the stay and reopen this case at any time.
3. No later than five days following the completion of their mediation, the Parties shall file a mediation report advising the Court as to its outcome.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on March 4, 2025.
Charlene Edwards Honeywell Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge
Copies to: Counsel of Record and Unrepresented Parties, if any
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (U.S. 1997)
- Advanced Bodycare Solutions, LLC v. Thione Int'l, Inc., 524 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2008)