Patton v. Stolle Machinery Company LLC

Filing 21

ORDER granting 12 Motion to Stay Discovery and Further Proceedings. This matter is STAYED pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss [# 9 ]. The Scheduling Conference set for 4/9/2015 at 10:00 AM is VACATED. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/7/2015. (alowe)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03392-WJM-KLM
MARK PATTON, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff,
v.
STOLLE MACHINERY COMPANY LLC,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery and
Further Proceedings [#12] (the “Motion”). Plaintiff filed a Response [#15] in opposition
to the Motion, and Defendant filed a Reply [#17]. Defendant asks the Court to stay
discovery pending resolution of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [#9] pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(1), filed January 28, 2015. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the
Motion [#12].
This Court has long noted that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly
provide for a stay of proceedings in a lawsuit. String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows,
Inc., No. 02-cv-01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL 894955 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006). However, the
Court has construed Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to permit a stay of discovery “for good cause, to
protect a party from undue burden or expense,” especially when dispositive motions are
pending. Id. The party who seeks a stay of discovery has the burden of demonstrating

-1-

good cause, and “cannot sustain that burden by offering simply conclusory statements.”
Tr. of Springs Transit Co. Emp.’s Ret. & Disability Plan v. City of Colorado Springs, No. 09cv-02842-WYD-CBS, 2010 WL 1904509, at *4 (D. Colo. May 11, 2010). Generally, the
Court requires a “particular and specific demonstration of fact” in support of a request for
a stay. Id.; see also Christou v. Beatport, LLC, No. 10-cv-02912-CMA-KMT, 2011 WL
650377, at *1 (D. Colo. Feb. 10, 2011). In the context of ruling on a motion to stay, the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals stated almost thirty years ago that “the right to proceed in
court should not be denied except under the most extreme circumstances.” Commodity
Futures Trading Comm’n v. Chilcott Portfolio Mgmt., Inc., 713 F.2d 1477, 1484 (10th Cir.
1983). Hence, it has long been recognized that stays are generally disfavored in this
district, although the decision to grant or deny them invokes the discretion of the Court
under the circumstances at issue. See, e.g., id.
However, questions of jurisdiction and immunity should be resolved at the earliest
stages of litigation, so as to conserve the time and resources of the Court and the parties.
See Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308 & 310 (1996). Precedent amply demonstrates
that the Court has broad discretion to stay an action when a dispositive motion is pending.
String Cheese Incident, LLC, 2006 WL 894955 at *2 (finding that a thirty-day stay of
discovery was appropriate when a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was
pending). Indeed, “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.” 8 Charles Allen
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.”); see also Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
-2-

Eng’g, 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.”); Nankivil v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 216 F.R.D. 689, 692 (M.D. Fla. 2003)
(holding that a stay is appropriate if “resolution of a preliminary motion may dispose of the
entire action”).
Finally, the factors to be applied by the Court in determining the propriety of a stay
are: (1) Plaintiff’s interests in proceeding expeditiously with the action and the potential
prejudice to Plaintiff resulting from a delay; (2) the burden on Defendant; (3) the
convenience to the Court; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the litigation; and (5)
the public interest. String Cheese Incident, LLC, 2006 WL 894955 at *2.
1. Plaintiff’s Interests
This litigation does not differ substantially from other civil litigation. Plaintiff’s stated
interests in needing to immediately proceed with this lawsuit are largely conclusory. The
only significant argument advanced by Plaintiff is that “[i]n a collective action under the
FLSA, when additional plaintiffs file their consents with the court, the filing generally does
not ‘relate back’ to the original filing date of the complaint for the purposes of the statute
of limitations.” Response [#15] (citing 29 U.S.C. § 256). Therefore, Plaintiff asserts that
“every day that passes potentially diminishes the amount of overtime wages that future
claimants may recover in this action” and “[d]elay may eliminate the claims of some
potential claimants completely.” Response [#15] at 3. Plaintiff does not argue, however,
that immediate discovery is needed to identify potential members of this collective action.
Thus, if the Court stays discovery and tolls the statute of limitations while the stay is

-3-

pending, then this argument loses its strength.1 Because Plaintiff has not identified with
specificity any substantial interest in proceeding immediately with discovery, this factor is
neutral.
2. Defendant’s Burden
This issue concerns whether Defendant will be unfairly burdened if discovery
proceeds before a ruling is issued on the pending dispositive motion. See, e.g., String
Cheese Incident, LLC, 2006 WL 894955 at *2 (stating that “defendants, however, also
would undoubtedly be prejudiced if they were forced to engage in discovery if the court
eventually granted their motion to dismiss”). The Court is not inclined to prejudge the
merits of the dispositive motion here; however, the Court recognizes that proceeding with
discovery would be wasteful should the Motion to Dismiss be granted, especially as it may
dispose of the entire case. This is especially true because the Motion to Dismiss is based
purely on a jurisdictional argument, and questions of jurisdiction should be resolved at the
earliest stages of litigation, so as to conserve the time and resources of the Court and the
parties. See Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308 & 310 (1996) (stating that questions
of jurisdiction should be resolved at the earliest stages of litigation). Thus, this factor
weighs in favor of imposing a stay.
3. Convenience to the Court

1

Defendant argues that “Plaintiff’s alternative request to toll the statute of limitations
disregards unambiguous precedent from the Tenth Circuit that such equitable tolling is reserved
only for egregious cases of demonstrated misconduct on behalf of the defendant preventing
individuals from filing suit.” Reply [#17] at 1-2. This is incorrect. “The Tenth Circuit has not
addressed . . . when, if ever, equitable tolling is appropriate in an FLSA collective action.” Koehler
v. Freightquote.com, Inc., __ F. Supp. 3d __, __, 2015 WL 1242035, at *8 (D. Kan. Mar. 18, 2015).
“However, district courts in this Circuit uniformly have agreed that tolling can, in some
circumstances, be appropriate in a lawsuit like this one.” Id. (collecting cases).

-4-

Entry of a stay may cause significant delay of the resolution of this matter, which in
turn makes the Court’s docket less predictable and less manageable. Moreover, the
District Judge discourages litigation strategy or conduct that results in delaying the progress
of litigation, including the filing of motions for extensions of time, motions for continuances
of hearings, and dispositive motions generally. See WJM Practice Standards §§ II.D, III.D,
III.E (Dec. 1, 2014). This factor weighs against the entry of a stay.
4. Interest of Non-Parties
The only interest identified with respect to non-parties is the one advanced by
Plaintiff regarding potential future opt-in plaintiffs. See Response [#15] at 7. As noted
above, if discovery is stayed and the statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of
the stay, their interests are protected. Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor weighs
in favor of imposing a stay.
5. The Public Interest
The public interest at stake here is the same interest underlying all lawsuits: that
they be resolved as fairly and quickly as possible. In light of the issues outlined above, the
Court finds that considerations of fairness and timeliness will be advanced by imposition
of a stay. Hence, this factor weighs in favor of entry of a stay.
Application of the String Cheese factors results in the conclusion that an imposition
of a stay is justified in this case. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#12] is GRANTED. This matter is
STAYED pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss [#9].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the statute of limitations is TOLLED for potential

-5-

opt-in plaintiffs to this FLSA collective action during the pendency of the stay.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for April 9, 2015 at
10:00 a.m. is VACATED. It shall be reset, if necessary, after resolution of the Motion
to Dismiss [#9].

Dated: April 7, 2015

-6-