Mendoza-Nieto v. Scott Contracting, Inc.
ORDER; 21 Defendant Scott Contracting, Inc.s Unopposed Motionto Stay Case Pending Resolution of the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Thecase is stayed with the exception of the briefing on the anticipated Motion to Dismiss. The parties shall file a status report within ten days of the final ruling on the Motion to Dismiss to advise if the previously vacated Scheduling Conference should be reset, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 2/23/16.(morti, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 15–cv–02681–MSK–KMT
J. RAMON MENDOZA-NIETO,
SCOTT CONTRACTING, INC., a Colorado corporation,
This matter is before the court on “Defendant Scott Contracting, Inc.’s Unopposed
Motion to Stay Case Pending Resolution of the Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. No. 21 [“Mot.”], filed
February 19, 2016).
Plaintiff brings this action asserting a federal claim under the Americans with Disabilities
Act and a state law claim based on retaliation for filing a Worker’s Compensation claim.
Defendant anticipates filing a Motion to Dismiss on or before March 9, 2016. (Mot. at 1-2.)
Defendant now moves for a stay of these proceedings pending a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss,
and Plaintiff does not oppose.
Although a stay of proceedings is generally disfavored, the court has discretion to stay
discovery while a dispositive motion is pending. See 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 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 actual 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 defendants 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)).
As to the first and second String Cheese factors, because Plaintiff does not oppose
Defendant’s move for a stay of discovery, there is no prejudice that will result from the stay.
With regard to the third factor, it is certainly more convenient for the court to grant the stay until
it is clear to what extent 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].”). Here, the anticipated motion to dismiss will resolve all issues in this case, if it is
granted. Thus, the third factor weighs in favor of granting a stay.
With regard to the fourth factor, no nonparties with significant particularized interests in
this case have been identified. The court finds that absent any specific nonparty interests that
would be affected, the fourth factor neither weighs in favor of nor against granting a stay.
Finally, with regard to the fifth factor, the court finds that the public’s primary 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 factor weighs in favor of granting a stay.
Weighing the relevant factors, the court finds that a stay of proceedings is warranted in
light of the anticipated Motion to Dismiss.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that “Defendant Scott Contracting, Inc.’s Unopposed Motion
to Stay Case Pending Resolution of the Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. No. 21) is GRANTED. The
case is stayed with the exception of the briefing on the anticipated Motion to Dismiss. The
parties shall file a status report within ten days of the final ruling on the Motion to Dismiss to
advise if the previously vacated Scheduling Conference should be reset.
Dated this 23rd day of February, 2016.
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?