WEEMS
v.
ASSOCIATION OF RELATED CHURCHES
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 warranted pending resolution of the motion to dismiss due to a non-frivolous challenge to subject matter jurisdiction.
Defendants moved to stay discovery pending a ruling on their motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs opposed the motion.…
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 Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. 32; Motion to Stay), filed on September 5, 2023. In the Motion to Stay, Defendants ask the Court to stay discovery, including initial disclosures, pending a ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or, Alternatively, Motion for More Definite Statement and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. 28; Motion to Dismiss). Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the Motion to Stay on September 25, 2023. See Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 36; Response). Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review. It is well established that district courts have broad, inherent authority to manage their dockets, including the power to stay discovery. See Aatrix
Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-164-HES-MCR, 2015 WL 12835689, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 10, 2015); Lewis v. Abbott Labs., Inc., No. 6:19-cv-909-Orl-31LRH, 2019 WL 5448289, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug.2, 2019);1 see also Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016) (“This Court has also held that district courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases.”). However, stays of discovery “are generally disfavored ‘because when discovery is delayed or prolonged it can create case management problems which impede the Court’s responsibility to expedite discovery and cause unnecessary litigation expenses and problems.’” See Aatrix Software, Inc., 2015 WL 12835689, at *1 (quoting Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997)); see also Middle District Discovery (2021) at Section I.E.4.
Nevertheless, “[c]ourts must manage pretrial discovery to avoid wasting resources, and ‘[g]ranting a discovery stay until an impending motion to dismiss is resolved is a proper exercise of that responsibility.’” See Race v. Bradford
Cir. 2017)2). Upon review of the record, the Court notes that Defendants have raised a non-frivolous challenge to this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. As such, and having weighed the competing interests, the Court finds that a stay of discovery pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss is warranted under the particular circumstances of this case. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. 32) is GRANTED.
2. Discovery is STAYED.
United States District Judge
Ie11 Copies to: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McNamara v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 30 F.4th 1055 (11th Cir. 2022)
- Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2004)
- Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651 (M.D. Fla. 1997)
- Dietz v. Hillary Bouldin., 136 S. Ct. 1885 (U.S. 2016)