Aurora Bank FSB v. Network Mortgage Services, Inc.
Filing
19
ORDER. Defendant's 17 Motion for Stay of Merits Disclosure and Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, to Extend the Deadline for the Scheduling Order 30 Days is granted to t he extent it seeks a stay of discovery pending District Judge Brimmer's ruling on the 16 Motion to Dismiss. All discovery is stayed pending resolution of 16 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Scheduling Conference set for 6/24/2013, at 10:30 AM is vacated. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 6/19/13.(mnfsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00047-PAB-KLM
AURORA BANK FSB, a Federal Savings Bank,
Plaintiff,
v.
NETWORK MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., a Washington corporation doing business as
NETWORK HOME LOANS,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Stay of Merits
Disclosure and Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, to Extend the Deadline for the
Scheduling Order 30 Days [Docket No. 17; Filed June 17, 2013] (the “Motion to Stay”).
Plaintiff has not yet responded to the Motion.1 In the Motion Defendant asks the Court to
stay discovery “and other case obligations” in this case until District Judge Brimmer rules
on its pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue and
Memorandum in Support [#16] (the “Motion to Dismiss”). Motion to Stay [#17] at 8. In the
alternative, Defendant seeks a 30-day extension of the parties’ deadline for submission of
1
Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C, the Court may rule on a pending motion at any time.
1
a proposed Scheduling Order.2 Id.
Although the stay of proceedings in a case is generally disfavored, the Court has
discretion to stay discovery while a dispositive motion is pending. See Wyers Prods. Grp.
v. Cequent Performance Prods., Inc., No. 12-cv-02640-REB-KMT, 2013 WL 2466917, at
*3 (D. Colo. June 7, 2013) (granting motion to stay until resolution of motion to dismiss
premised on court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Carty-Mauk v. Elliott, No. 12-cv02117-REB-KLM, 2013 WL 1876773, at *2 (D. Colo. May 3, 2012) (granting stay pending
resolution of motion to dismiss); Stienmier v. Donley, No. 09-cv-01260-KMT-BNB, 2010 WL
1576714, at * 3 (D. Colo. April 20, 2010) (finding stay appropriate until court rules on
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Wason Ranch Corp. v. Hecla
Mining Co., No. 07-cv-00267-EWN-MEH, 2007 WL 1655362, at *1 (D. Colo. June 6, 2007)
(“A stay of all discovery is generally disfavored in this District.” (citation omitted)); String
Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 1:02-cv-01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL
894955, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006) (finding that a thirty day stay of discovery was
appropriate when a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was pending);
Nankivil v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 216 F.R.D. 689, 692 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (A stay may be
appropriate if “resolution of a preliminary motion may dispose of the entire action.”); 8
Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2040, at 521-22 (2d ed.
1994) (“[W]hen one issue may be determinative of a case, the court has discretion to stay
discovery on other issues until the critical issue has been decided.”); Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 804 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“When a particular issue may
2
The Court notes that the Motion to Stay was filed on June 17, 2013 which was also the
parties’ deadline to submit a proposed Scheduling Order.
2
be dispositive, the court may stay discovery concerning other issues until the critical issue
is resolved.”); Gilbert v. Ferry, 401 F.3d 411, 415-16 (6th Cir. 2005) (finding that ordering
a stay of discovery is not an abuse of discretion when a defendant has filed a motion to
dismiss challenging the court’s subject matter jurisdiction); Chavous v. D.C. Fin.
Responsibility & Mgmt. Assistance Auth., 201 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2005) (“A stay of
discovery pending the determination of a dispositive motion is an eminently logical means
to prevent wasting the time and effort of all concerned, and to make the most efficient use
of judicial resources.” (internal quotation omitted)).
When exercising its discretion, the Court considers the following factors: (1) the
interest of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously with discovery and the potential prejudice
to the plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendant of proceeding with discovery; (3)
the convenience to the Court of staying discovery; (4) the interests of nonparties in either
staying or proceeding with discovery; and (5) the public interest in either staying or
proceeding with discovery. String Cheese Incident, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (citing FDIC
v. Renda, No. 85-2216-O, 1987 WL 348635, at *2 (D. Kan. Aug. 6, 1987)).
In this case, staying discovery would not prejudice Plaintiff other than delaying
adjudication of its claims. Defendant states that even though Plaintiff opposes a stay
pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff is unopposed to a 30-day extension
of “submission of the scheduling order,” showing that Plaintiff does not believe that initial
discovery is urgent. Motion to Stay [#17] at 1. The Court finds that the first String Cheese
Incident factor weighs in favor of staying discovery.
With regard to the second factor, the Court finds that Defendants have not
demonstrated that proceeding with the discovery process presents an undue burden.
3
However, Defendants are correct that proceeding will be wasteful if the Court grants their
Motion to Dismiss [#16]. This litigation is in the very early stages and the Motion to Dismiss
alleges that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Further, “Defendant sets
forth more than conclusory assertions as to why jurisdiction is lacking; [it] has made
detailed factual allegations, supported by legal analysis” that it is not subject to personal
jurisdiction. Stienmier, 2010 WL 1576714, at *2; see also Harris v. United States, No. 09cv-02658-PAB-KLM, 2010 WL 1687915, at *1 (D. Colo. April 27, 2012) (“Defendant has
done more than offer conclusory assertions that jurisdiction is lacking . . . . In such a
circumstance, the Court determines that the burden on Defendant of going forward with
discovery outweighs the desire of Plaintiff to have his case proceed expeditiously.”). In
addition, there is currently a Scheduling Conference set for June 24, 2013 during which the
Court will have to expend its time and limited resources. If the Motion to Dismiss [#16] is
resolved in favor of Defendant, the Court’s expenditure would be for naught. The Court
therefore finds that the second String Cheese Incident factor weighs in favor of staying
discovery.
With regard to the third factor, it is certainly more convenient for the Court to stay
discovery until it is clear that the case will proceed. See Chavous, 201 F.R.D. at 5 (Staying
discovery pending decision on a dispositive motion that would fully resolve the case
“furthers the ends of economy and efficiency, since if [the motion] is granted, there will be
no need for [further proceedings].”).
With regard to the fourth factor, there are no nonparties with significant particularized
interests in this case. Accordingly, the fourth String Cheese Incident factor neither weighs
in favor nor against staying discovery.
4
With regard to the fifth and final factor, the Court finds that the public’s only interest
in this case is a general interest in its efficient and just resolution. Avoiding wasteful efforts
by the Court clearly serves this interest. Thus, the fifth String Cheese Incident factor
weighs in favor of staying discovery.
Weighing the relevant factors, the Court concludes that staying discovery pending
resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [#16] is appropriate. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Stay [#17] is GRANTED as follows:
the Motion to Stay is granted to the extent it seeks a stay of discovery pending District
Judge Brimmer’s ruling on the Motion to Dismiss [#16].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery is stayed pending resolution of
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [#16].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for June 24, 2013,
at 10:30 a.m. is VACATED. The Court will reset the Scheduling Conference, if necessary,
after resolution of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [#16].
Dated: June 19, 2013
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?