Smart-Tel Communications, LLC v. Advanced Communications & Maintenance, LLC et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 14 Motion to Stay. The Scheduling Conference set for 3/16/2016 is VACATED and RESET for 4/20/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom C204 before Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang. By Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 3/15/16. (nywlc1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 16-cv-00222-RM-NYW
SMART-TEL COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
a Colorado limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS &
MAINTENANCE, a Florida limited liability company and
KEVIN WADE TAYLOR, a resident of the state of Florida,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered By Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang
This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings
Pending the Court’s Ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”). [#14, filed
March 14, 2016]. The matter was referred to this Magistrate Judge pursuant to the Order
Referring Case dated February 4, 2016 [#7] and the memorandum dated March 14, 2016 [#15].
On February 19, 2016, Defendants filed a “Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, to
Transfer Venue,” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), contending this court lacks personal
jurisdiction over them. [#11]. Plaintiff filed a Response on March 11, 2016. [#13]. Defendants
now ask the court to stay this matter pending the court’s resolution of the Motion to Dismiss. “A
stay of all discovery is generally disfavored in this District,” although the court retains discretion
to order a stay, which may be appropriate if “resolution of a preliminary motion may dispose of
the entire action.” Wason Ranch Corp. v. Hecla Mining Co., No. 07–cv–00267–EWN–MEH,
2007 WL 1655362, at *1 (D. Colo. Jun. 6, 2007) (citations 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, LLC v.
Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 02–cv–01934–LTB–PAC, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30,
2006) (citation omitted).

In the instant Motion, Defendants assert only that “[m]eeting the Rule 16(b) deadlines,
including the discovery requirements, places an unnecessary burden and causes Defendants
unnecessary legal expenses,” and that they “should not be required to engage in extensive legal
research, analysis, or fact discovery prior to being required to file a responsive pleading.” [#14
at 2]. As noted above, the Motion to Dismiss is filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), through which
parties may contest personal jurisdiction. The Motion to Dismiss does not suggest deficiency of
federal subject matter jurisdiction, indeed it contemplates a potential transfer of venue, and
Defendants do not suggest that a favorable ruling will dispose of this matter in its entirety. Cf.
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); Gilbert
v. Ferry, 401 F.3d 411, 415–16 (6th Cir. 2005) (finding that staying discovery is not an abuse of
discretion when a defendant has filed a motion to dismiss challenging the court's subject matter
jurisdiction). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending the Court’s Ruling on Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss [#14] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;
2. The Scheduling Conference set for March 16, 2016 is VACATED and reset for April 20,
2016 at 2:00 pm in Courtroom C-204, 2d Floor, Byron G. Rogers United States
Courthouse, 1929 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado. An updated proposed Scheduling
Order is due not later than April 13, 2016, and a courtesy copy in Word format will be
submitted directly to chambers at [e-mail]; and
3. Defendants shall participate in drafting the Joint Proposed Scheduling Order due seven
days prior to the Scheduling Conference; the court will interpret any failure to so
participate as a waiver of objection to the proposals contained therein.

DATED: March 15, 2016