SERINO
v.
BROWARD COUNTY
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 plaintiff's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of defendant's motion to dismiss. The court applied established Eleventh Circuit precedent regarding the broad discretion courts have in granting discovery stays when a motion to dismiss appears potentially case-dispositive.
The court granted the motion to stay discovery. The court determined that a stay is appropriate because the motion to dismiss does not appear wholly meritless, defendant does not oppose the stay, neither party would be prejudiced, and the ruling on the motion to dismiss could be case-dispositive.
[1] A court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant a stay of discovery.
[2] A stay of discovery is appropriate when a motion to dismiss appears to be clearly meritorious and case dispositive.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A court has 'broad discretion' in determining whether to grant a stay of discovery.”
Establishes the applicable standard of review for discovery stay motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff filed a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant's motion to dismiss challenged the legal suf…
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 Dispositive Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of the Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 20], filed on January 16, 2025. For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
A court has “broad discretion” in determining whether to grant a stay of discovery. Rivas v. The Bank of New York Mellon, 676 F. App'x 926, 932 (11th Cir. 2017). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that it is appropriate for the Court dispose of “[f]acial challenges to the legal sufficiency of a claim or defense, such as a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim for relief," before the parties engage in costly and potentially unnecessary discovery. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F. 3d 1353, 1367–68 (11th Cir. 1997).
"[A] motion to stay discovery is rarely appropriate unless resolution of the motion will dispose of the entire case.” Bocciolone v. Solowsky, No. 08-20200-CIV, 2008 WL 2906719, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 24, 2008). “To evaluate whether 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)).
When taking a preliminary peek at a motion to dismiss for purposes of a motion to stay discovery, the Court must decide if the motion to dismiss “appears to be clearly meritorious and truly case dispositive.” Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652–53. In other words, the Court asks if on the face of the motion to dismiss “there appears to be an immediate and clear possibility that it will be granted.” Id. at 653 (quoting Simpson v. Specialty Retail Concepts, Inc., 121 F.R.D. 261, 263 (M.D.N.C. 1988)). “The court must also weigh 'the harm produced by a delay in discovery' against 'the likely costs and burdens of proceeding with discovery.” Ray, 2012 WL 5471793, at *1 (quoting Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652).
Upon preliminary review, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss does not appear to be wholly meritless. [See generally ECF No. 14]; see also Arriaga-Zacarias v. Lewis Taylor Farms, Inc., 2008 WL 4544470, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 10, 2008) (granting a stay of discovery deadlines when a motion to dismiss is not “meritless on its face"). Further, Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff's stay request, and there is no indication that either party would be prejudiced by a stay. Additionally, a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss could be case-dispositive. [See ECF No. 14 at 2, 3 (arguing that “Count 1 fails to state a claim against [Defendant] and should be dismissed” and Defendant “is entitled to immunity under [Florida Statute] § 768.28 and Count III should be dismissed”). On balance, then, a stay is appropriate.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of the Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 20] is GRANTED. Discovery in this matter, including the requirement to file a Joint Scheduling Report, is stayed pending resolution of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 14].
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida this 17th day of January, 2025.
cc: counsel of record
DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Viola v. Charlotte's Web, Inc., 2012 WL 5471793 (M.D. Fla. 2024)…te's Web sought to stay discovery.² 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 (…1 / 2
-
Serino v. Broward Cnty. (S.D. Fla. 2025)…sary discovery. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367–68 (11th Cir. 1997). "[A] motion to stay discovery is rarely appropriate unless resolution of the motion will dispose of the entire case.” Bocciolone v. Solowsky, No. 08-20200-CIV, 2008 WL 2906719, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 24, 2008). “To evaluate whether 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 m…
-
United States v. Zastrow (M.D. Fla. 2024)…to see if it appears to be clearly meritorious and truly case dispositive.” Id. at 652-53. A “motion to stay discovery is rarely appropriate unless resolution of the motion will dispose of the entire case.” Bocciolone v. Solowsky, No. 08-20200-CIV, 2008 WL 2906719, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 24, 2008). The Court will not continue the case management conference, nor stay discovery here. There is no clear indication that the claims brought are frivolous. Defendants argue that the statute sued under—the Freedom of A…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Viola v. Charlotte's Web, Inc., 2012 WL 5471793 (M.D. Fla. 2024)
- Thrasher v. Quikaid, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2025)
- David v. United States (M.D. Fla. 2020)
- Serino v. Broward Cnty. (S.D. Fla. 2025)