STROZIER
v.
WALMART 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 granted the motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss.
Defendant Apex Medical Corporation moved to stay discovery pending the resolution of its motion to dismiss, which argued for dismissal based on lack o…
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 Stay Of Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
Pending before the Court is Defendant Apex Medical Corporation’s Motion for an Order Staying Discovery Pending the Resolution of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 54. Defendant, Apex Medical Corporation (“Apex”) requests the Court to enter an order staying discovery until the resolution of Apex’s motion to dismiss. For the reasons discussed below the motion is due to be granted. On August 25, 2022, the Court entered a report and recommendation, recommending that Apex’s motion to dismiss be granted because Plaintiff had not alleged sufficient information to establish personal jurisdiction over Apex. The deadline for filing objections to the report and recommendation is September 8. So far, no objections have been filed. Resolution of Apex’s motion to dismiss could be dispositive of the claims in this case.
The Court has broad discretion to manage cases before it, which includes pretrial matters such as discovery. Because resolution of Apex’s Motion to Dismiss could be dispositive of the claims against it, pursuing discovery against Apex could result in an undue burden and expense, which does not benefit the Plaintiff or the Defendant. There is ample support in the Eleventh Circuit for staying discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss. See, e.g. Chudasama v. Mazda
Motor Corp., 123 F. 3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997)(finding that stay of discovery appropriate where a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was pending); Moore v. Potter, 141 Fed. Appx. 803, 807-08 (11th Cir. 2005(unpublished opinion)(finding no error in the District Court’s order staying discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief). A stay of discovery until the district judge resolves the pending report and recommendation on Apex’s motion to dismiss will not prejudice the Plaintiff. In the event Plaintiff files an amended complaint against Apex and the claims against Apex proceed a scheduling order will be entered that will afford Plaintiff with a full and fair opportunity to conduct necessary discovery. On the other hand, in the event Apex’s motion to dismiss is granted staying discovery will conserve judicial resources and will protect
Apex from engaging in the burdens of unnecessary discovery. Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED: 1. Defendant Apex Medical Corporation’s Motion for an Order Staying Discovery Pending the Resolution of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 54, is GRANTED.
2. All discovery against Apex is stayed pending resolution of the pending motion to dismiss and further order of the Court.
DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of September 2022. s/Gary R. Jones
GARY R. JONES
United States Magistrate Judge