Abeyta v. Colorado Technical University, Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER granting 22 Unopposed Motion for Stay of Proceedings. Discovery in this action is STAYED until further order of the court and all outstanding Scheduling Order deadlines are VACATED. Within either (1) 21 days after receipt of a right-to-su e letter from the EEOC or (2) September 30, 2014, whichever is earlier, Plaintiff shall file either (1) a motion to amend the complaint or (2) a Joint Status Report (with Defendants) advising the court as to the status of the EEOC proceedings and whether the stay of this action should be lifted, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 5/13/14.(sgrim)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 13–cv–03084–WJM–KMT

TIFFANY ABEYTA, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLORADO TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, INC., a Colorado corporation,
Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Unopposed Motion for Stay of
Proceedings.” (Doc. No. 22, filed May 9, 2014.) For the following reasons, the Motion to Stay
is GRANTED.
In her First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 17, filed Dec. 24, 2014), Plaintiff asserts six
claims for relief, including claims under Title VII, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and state law.
On April 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging, among other things, retaliation, harassment, and
unequal pay based upon gender. (Mot. at 2.) Plaintiff maintains that the allegations at issue in
the April 3, 2014 charge are closely related to the facts forming the basis of her existing claims.

Plaintiff seeks a stay of proceedings until if and when she receives a right-to-sue letter from the
EEOC on her April 3, 2014 charge. 1
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for a stay of proceedings.
See String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 02–CV–01934–LTB–PA, 2006 WL
894955, at *2 (D. Colo. March 30, 2006) (unpublished). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26
does, however, provide that
[a] party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective
order in the court where the action is pending . . . . The court may, for good
cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . .
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1). Moreover, “[t]he 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. When considering a stay of discovery, this court has considered the
following factors: (1) the plaintiff’s interest in proceeding expeditiously with the civil action and
the potential prejudice to plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendants; (3) the

1

Under Title VII and other discrimination statutes, a plaintiff must obtain a right-to-sue letter
from the EEOC as a prerequisite to suit. See, e.g., Shikles v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 426 F.3d
1304, 1310 (10th Cir. 2005). Title VII further provides that the EEOC will issue a right to sue
letter within 180 days of the filing of the charge if the agency has not filed a civil action on the
charge or obtained a settlement. See EEOC v. JBS USA, LLC, 794 F. Supp. 2d 1188, 1204 (D.
Colo. 2011) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)).
2

convenience to the court; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (4) the
public interest. String Cheese Incident, 2006 WL 894955, at *2.
The Tenth Circuit has recognized the propriety of a stay under the circumstances
presented in this case. Wilkes v. Wyoming Dept. of Emp’t, 314 F.3d 501, 506 (10th Cir. 2002).
In Wilkes, the plaintiff argued that the district court improperly dismissed her claims for
violations of Title VII on claim preclusion grounds based on a prior lawsuit she filed concerning
the same employment relationship. Id. at 503. More specifically, the plaintiff argued that
because she had not yet received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, she was statutorily
prohibited from raising her Title VII claims in the prior suit and, therefore, should not be barred
from raising those claims in a subsequent lawsuit. Id. In rejecting this argument, the Wilkes
court held that, to avoid claim preclusion, the plaintiff “could have filed her [initial lawsuit] . . .
and then sought a stay in the district court until completion of the EEOC administrative process.
After receiving her right-to-sue letter, Wilkes could have added her Title VII claim to her initial
lawsuit by amending her complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.” Id. at 506.
Thus, the Tenth Circuit has recognized that a stay of proceedings may be appropriate to allow
completion of the EEOC administrative process as to additional putative claims.
The String Cheese factors also favor a stay. First, both parties would face undue burden
and expense if they were forced to proceed with discovery as to Plaintiff’s existing claims, only
to have discovery extended or reopened if and when Plaintiff is allowed to amend her complaint
to assert the claims currently under EEOC review. For similar reasons, the court’s convenience
favors staying this action until Plaintiff receives a right-to-sue letter. Judicial economy would
not be well-served by proceeding with discovery on Plaintiff’s existing claims when it is clear

3

that several additional claims may be added to this action. Rather, the court finds that the best
approach is to postpone discovery until all of the claims that may eventually be asserted in this
action become ripe. Finally, the court finds that the interest of non-parties and the public do not
prompt a different result. Altogether, on balance, the court finds that a temporary stay of
proceedings is appropriate.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Unopposed Motion for Stay of Proceedings” (Doc. No. 22) is
GRANTED. Discovery in this action is STAYED until further order of the court and all
outstanding Scheduling Order deadlines are VACATED. Within either (1) 21 days after receipt
of a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC or (2) September 30, 2014, whichever is earlier, Plaintiff
shall file either (1) a motion to amend the complaint or (2) a Joint Status Report (with
Defendants) advising the court as to the status of the EEOC proceedings and whether the stay of
this action should be lifted.
Dated this 13th day of May, 2014.

4