O'Banion v. Studio J Corporation
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/7/14. The Joint Motion to Vacate Order Setting Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference and Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting 11 is DENIED. (bsimm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00339-BNB
STUDIO J CORPORATION, a/k/a Jonas Bros. Taxidermy Studio t/n,
Now pending is the Joint Motion to Vacate Order Setting Rule 16(b) Scheduling
Conference and Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting [Doc. # 11, filed 4/7/2014] (the “Motion to
Vacate”). The parties argue that the scheduling conference is premature in view of the
defendants Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 10].
The plaintiff alleges in his complaint that in 2006 he delivered to the defendant “a large
male lion” “taken” in a hunting trip in Zimbabwe. Complaint [Doc. # 1] at ¶20. The 2006 Lion
was sent to a tannery, and the hide was returned to the defendant after that work was completed.
Id. at ¶27. The defendant retained possession of the 2006 Lion hide until the plaintiff ordered
further taxidermy work. Id. at ¶¶32-35. Finally, the plaintiff alleges:
40. In approximately June of 2013, Plaintiff contacted Defendant
and requested that Defendant begin work on the 2006 Lion lion
from Zimbabwe, a smaller lion from Tanzania, and two leopards-one from Zimbabwe and one from Tanzania.
41. Defendant informed Plaintiff that it could not find Plaintiff’s
2006 Lion from Zimbabwe.
* * *
46. Despite Plaintiff’s multiple demands, Defendant refused to
return Plaintiff’s prized 2006 Lion and all of the other trophies
currently in Defendant’s possession.
Id. at ¶¶40-41 and 46. Based on these facts, the plaintiff asserts claims for conversion,
negligence by bailee, breach of contract, and breach of implied contract.
The defendant seeks dismissal of the claim based on the statute of limitation and laches.
There is no claim that the court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims.
The practical effect of granting the Motion to Vacate would be to stay discovery until the
motion to dismiss is decided. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for the stay
of proceedings while a motion to dismiss is pending. Instead, Rule 1 instructs that the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure “shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of every action,” and Rule 26(c) permits a court to “make any order
which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression,
or undue burden or expense,” including entry of a stay of discovery. In considering whether to
grant a stay:
Five factors have been universally recognized as being critical to a
proper balancing of the competing interests at stake. Those factors
are: (1) the interests of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously
with the civil action and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a
delay; (2) the burden on the defendants; (3) the convenience to the
court; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation;
and (5) the public interest.
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Renda, 1987 WL 348635 *2 (D. Kan. Aug. 6, 1987); accord String
Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., 2006 WL 894955 *3 (D. Colo. March 30,
2006)(same). Considering these factors leads me to conclude that a stay of discovery in this case
is not warranted.
The determination of a motion to dismiss ordinarily takes several months. Consequently,
staying the case while the defendant’s motion to dismiss is pending may delay the ultimate
resolution of the matter, with injurious consequences. In this regard, it has been argued:
Delay is an element indigenous to many systems, and one that can
have significant implications unless recognized and accounted for.
* * *
In the litigation context, delay is not only of practical concern, as it
results in a decrease in evidentiary quality and witness availability,
but also of social concern, as it is cost prohibitive and threatens the
credibility of the justice system.
Mariel Rodak, It’s About Time: A Systems Thinking Analysis of the Litigation Finance Industry
and Its Effect on Settlement, 155 U. PA. L. REV. 503, 528 (2006).
In addition, motions to dismiss are denied more often than they result in the termination
of a case. Consequently, without passing on the merits of the motion to dismiss, it is more likely
than not from a statistical point of view that a delay pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss
would prove unnecessary.
Defendants always are burdened when they are sued, whether the case ultimately is
dismissed; summary judgment is granted; the case is settled; or a trial occurs. That is a
consequence of our judicial system and the rules of civil procedure. There is no special burden
on the defendant in this case. Moreover, a stay of discovery pending the determination of a
motion to dismiss generally is disfavored in this district. Wason Ranch Corp. v. Hecla Mining
Co., 2007 WL 1655362 (D. Colo. June 6, 2007).
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Vacate [Doc. # 11] is DENIED.
Dated April 7, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
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?