Harper v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC

Filing 17

ORDER denying 10 Defendant's Motion to Vacate Scheduling Conference and Stay Discovery. By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 11/27/12.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 12–cv–02443–PAB–KMT

SUZANNE HARPER,
Plaintiff,
v.
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Washington limited liability
company,
Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on “Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Scheduling Conference
and Stay Discovery.” (Doc. No. 10, filed October 25, 2012 [Mot.].) Plaintiff filed her Response
on November 15, 2012 (Doc. No. 13 [Resp.]), and Defendant filed its Reply on November 20,
2012 (Doc. No. 15). For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff filed her original Complaint (Doc. No. 1) alleging Defendant violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”). Defendant filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. No. 9), and then filed its
Motion to Stay, arguing that the case should be stayed because the motion to dismiss, if granted,
would resolve the case in its entirety. On November 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed her Amended
Complaint (Doc. No. 12), and on November 20, 2012, District Judge Philip A. Brimmer denied
Defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot (Doc. No. 16).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for a stay of proceedings.
See String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., 02–cv–01934–LTB–PAC, 2006 WL
894955, at *2 (D. Colo. March 30, 2006) (unpublished). “The power to stay proceedings is
incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its
docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can
best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and
maintain an even balance.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936) (citing Kansas
City S. Ry. Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 760, 763 (1931)). An order staying discovery is thus
an appropriate exercise of this court’s discretion. Id.
A stay of all discovery is generally disfavored. Bustos v. United States, 257 F.R.D. 617,
623 (D. Colo. 2009). However, “a court may decide that in a particular case it would be wise to
stay discovery on the merits until [certain challenges] have been resolved.” 8A Charles Alan
Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2040, at 198
(3d ed. 2010). A stay may be appropriate if “resolution of a preliminary motion may dispose of
the entire action.” Nankivil v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 216 F.R.D. 689, 692 (M.D. Fla. 2003).
See also Vivid Techs., Inc. v.. Am. Sci. & Eng'r, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 804 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“When
a particular issue may be dispositive, the court may stay discovery concerning other issues until
the critical issue is resolved.”).
When considering a stay of discovery, this court has considered the following factors: (1)
the plaintiff’s interests in proceeding expeditiously with the civil action and the potential
prejudice to plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendants; (3) the convenience to the
2

court; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest.
See String Cheese Incident, 2006 WL 894955, at *2.
Defendant relies only on its motion to dismiss in arguing that it would be prejudiced by
proceeding with discovery. However, because the motion to dismiss has been denied as moot,
Defendant’s argument fails. Defendant has not addressed the remaining String Cheese factors
outlined above. Nevertheless, the court that the other factors do not weigh in favor of a stay of
discovery. Plaintiff has an interest in proceeding without delay. See String Cheese Incident,
LLC, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (granting an indefinite stay would “significantly impact and
prejudice plaintiff’s right to pursue [its] case and vindicate its claims expeditiously”) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). The court also has an interest in proceeding and
managing its docket. Finally, neither the interests of nonparties or the public interest in general
prompt the court to reach a different result. Indeed, the public interest favors the prompt and
efficient handling of all litigation. Sanaah v. Howell, 08–cv–02117–REB–KLM, 2009 WL
980383, at *1 (D. Colo. Apr. 9, 2009).
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that “Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Scheduling Conference and Stay
Discovery” (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED.
Dated this 27th day of November, 2012.

3