VIOLA
v.
CHARLOTTE'S WEB, INC.
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 court held that a stay of discovery is inappropriate when the motion to dismiss is not clearly meritorious and does not dispose of the entire case.
Defendant Charlotte's Web, Inc. moved to stay discovery on Counts III and IV of the complaint while its motion to dismiss those claims was pending. Th…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Preliminary Peek At Merits cases and more on FLexlaw
Charlotte's Web, Incorporated requests a stay of discovery regarding Counts III and IV¹ while its motion to dismiss those claims is pending. (Doc. 33). Charlotte's Web relies heavily on Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F. 3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997), contending that it should not have to waste resources responding to discovery on claims bound for dismissal. (Id. at 2). But Chudasama presented exceptional circumstances not present here. See Ray v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 12- 61528-cv-Scola, 2012 WL 5471793, *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2012) (Chudasama dealt with unjustifiable delay (1½ years) in ruling on a motion to dismiss, an erroneous decision to compel discovery from the defendant prior to adjudicating the motion to dismiss, and a dubious fraud claim that was likely to be dismissed). By contrast,
Charlotte's motion to dismiss (Doc. 30) was filed a little over a month ago—and just fourteen days later—Charlotte's Web sought to stay discovery. Therefore, “[t]he procedural posture here is a far cry from the bizarre situation in Chudasama, and this Court has not unduly delayed any rulings in this case.” Bocciolone v. Solowsky, No. 08-20200-cv-COOKE/B, 2008 WL 2906719, *2 (S.D. Fla. July 24, 2008).
The court has also taken a “preliminary peek' at the merits of the motion to dismiss to see if it appears to be clearly meritorious and truly case dispositive.” Cuhaci v. Kouri Grp., LP, 540 F. Supp. 3d 1184, 1187 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (internal citation omitted). Applying this framework, the court finds a stay inappropriate. This case not does not present “especially dubious" claims, nor does it appear that Counts III and IV are surely destined for dismissal. While Charlotte's Web advances detailed arguments for dismissal, Viola offers colorable arguments in response. Furthermore, even if these counts were dismissed, Counts I and II remain. And “a motion to stay discovery is rarely appropriate unless resolution of the motion will dispose of the entire case." Cuhaci, 540 F. Supp. 3d at 1187 (citing Bocciolone, 2008 WL 2906719, at *2). Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
ORDERED on March 7, 2024.
Sihler P. Mirell
NICHOLAS P. MIZELL
United States Magistrate Judge
[fn 1]: Counts III and IV assert claims for sex discrimination and retaliation. Counts I and II assert equal pay and failure-to-pay claims. (Doc. 29 at 8-11). The overall thrust of the entire complaint is that Viola was mistreated by her employer because she is a woman. (Id.).
[fn 2]: Charlotte's Web also sought additional time to file a reply in support of its motion to dismiss, which the court granted. (Docs. 35, 36). The briefing was completed on February 20, 2024, and so the motion to dismiss has been ripe for only 17 days. (Docs. 37-39).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (46 total)
-
Viola v. Charlotte's Web, Inc., 2012 WL 5471793 (M.D. Fla. 2024)…ontending that it should not have to waste resources responding to discovery on claims bound for dismissal. (Id. at 2). But *Chudasama* presented exceptional circumstances not present here. See *Ray v. Spirit Airlines, Inc.*, No. 12- 61528-cv-Scola, 2012 WL 5471793, *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2012) (*Chudasama* dealt with unjustifiable delay (1½ years) in ruling on a motion to dismiss, an erroneous decision to compel discovery from the defendant prior to adjudicating the motion to dismiss, and a dubious fraud claim…1 / 2
-
Serino v. Broward Cnty. (S.D. Fla. 2025)…there is a strong likelihood ‘the [dismissal] motion will be granted and entirely eliminate the need for such discovery,' the district court must take a ‘preliminary peek' at the merits of the motion.” Ray v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 12-61528-CIV, 2012 WL 5471793, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2012) (quoting Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652–53 (M.D. Fla. 1997)). ---PAGE 1--- Case 0:24-cv-61551-DSL Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2025 Page 2 of 2 When taking a preliminary peek at a motion to dismiss…1 / 3
-
United States v. Zastrow (M.D. Fla. 2024)…f[ied] the high standard required to stay discovery pending the resolution of a dispositive motion.” Markle v. Markle, No. 8:22-CV-511-CEH-TGW, 2023 WL 1797171, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2023); see also Ray v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 12-61528-CIV, 2012 WL 5471793, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2012) (rejecting stay where “the Court [could] not say that [the] case is surely destined for dismissal"); Bocciolone v. Solowsky, No. 08-20200-CIV, 2008 WL 2906719, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 24, 2008) (rejecting stay where “th…
Previewing 3 of 46 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bhupendra Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997)
- Viola v. Charlotte's Web, Inc., 2012 WL 5471793 (M.D. Fla. 2024)
- Serino v. Broward Cnty. (S.D. Fla. 2025)