Frederick v. Col-Terra Investments XIV

Filing 29

ORDER granting 19 Motion to Stay. Discovery shall be stayed pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss. A status conference is set for July 10, 2017, at 11:00 a.m, by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 5/10/2017. (jgonz, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 17-cv-00410-MSK-STV
TERRELL FREDERICK,
an individual, on his own behalf, and on behalf of LF, his minor child
Plaintiff,
v.
COL-TERRA INVESTMENTS XIV,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery and
Vacate April 28, 2017 Scheduling Conference [#19] (the “Motion to Stay”), which has
been referred to this Court [#21]. The Motion to Stay was filed on April 12, 2017. [#19]
Plaintiff’s Response was due on May 3, 2017, see D.C.Colo.LCivR 7.1(d), yet Plaintiff
has not filed a Response. This Court has carefully considered the Motion to Stay, the
entire case file and the applicable case law, and has determined that oral argument
would not materially assist in the disposition of the instant Motion to Stay. For the
following reasons, I GRANT the Motion to Stay.
I.

Procedural Background
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2012) (“ADA”). [#1] In particular, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges
that Defendant violated the ADA by failing to provide accessible parking space

identification signs sixty inches above the finish floor or ground surface as required by
regulations implementing the ADA. [Id. at ¶ 38] On April 10, 2017, Defendant filed a
Motion to Dismiss arguing that Defendant’s raising of the parking signs has mooted the
issue, thereby depriving this Court of subject matter jurisdiction. [#17] 1 The Motion to
Stay seeks to stay discovery pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss. [#19] 2
II.

Analysis
When considering whether to grant a stay, 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 defendant 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. See String Cheese Incident, LLC
v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 1:02-CV-01934-LTB-PA, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo.
Mar. 30, 2006). Considering these factors, the Court concludes that a stay is warranted
pending resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss.
First, although Plaintiff has an interest in proceeding expeditiously, Plaintiff has
failed to identify any specific prejudice that would befall Plaintiff as a result of any such
delay. Indeed, Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion to Stay. Because Plaintiff has
failed to provide any “specific examples of how [his] ability to conduct discovery might
1

Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint [#20] that Plaintiff claims moots the Motion to
Dismiss. [#27] The Amended Complaint contains an additional alleged ADA violation.
[#20] Neither the Motion to Dismiss nor the Motion for Clarification or Extension of Time
to Respond to Defendants Motion to Dismiss (“Motion for Clarification”) have been
referred to this Court.
2
The Motion to Stay also seeks an Order vacating the previously scheduled April 28,
2017, scheduling conference. [Id.] On April 14, 2017, this Court vacated the scheduling
conference pending resolution of the Motion to Stay. [#22]
2

be adversely affected by a stay,” the Court finds that Plaintiff’s general interest in
proceeding expeditiously does not overcome other factors discussed below that weigh
in favor of a stay. Stone v. Vail Resorts Dev. Co., No. 09-cv-02081-WYD-KLM, 2010
WL 148278, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 7, 2010).
Second, the Court finds that proceeding with discovery would impose a burden
upon Defendant. A ruling in favor of Defendant on the Motion to Dismiss would be
dispositive.

Thus, staying discovery may relieve the burdens of discovery for

Defendant. Accordingly, the second factor supports granting the Motion to Stay.
Third, the Court considers its own convenience.

The Court recognizes the

general policy in the District of Colorado disfavoring a complete stay of discovery, “as
the resulting delay makes the Court’s docket less predictable and, hence, less
manageable.” Stone, 2010 WL 148278, at *3. However, courts have acknowledged
that “[w]here a pending motion may dispose of an action . . . a stay of proceedings may
allow the Court to avoid expending resources in managing an action that ultimately will
be dismissed.” Id. Here, if successful, the Motion to Dismiss would entirely dispose of
the instant action. Given that this proceeding is at the very early stages, the Court finds
that the interests of judicial economy weigh in favor of granting the stay.
The fourth and fifth factors do not overcome the factors that support granting a
stay. Neither party has identified any nonparty whose interests would be impacted by
the requested stay. Moreover, while the public has an interest in the speedy resolution
of legal disputes, see, e.g., Waisanen v. Terracon Consultants, Inc., No. 09-cv-01104MSK-KMT, 2009 WL 5184699, at *2 (D. Colo. Dec. 22, 2009), under the specific

3

circumstances of this case, the Court finds that resolution of the Motion to Dismiss will
conserve judicial resources and further the public’s interest in judicial economy.
Considering the factors set forth above, the Court determines that a stay of
discovery pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss is warranted. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Motion to Stay [#19] is GRANTED. Discovery shall be stayed
pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss. 3 A status conference is set for July 10,
2017, at 11:00 a.m. Counsel may appear telephonically at that status conference by
initiating a telephone call among all individuals participating by phone and calling the
Court (303.335.2365) at the scheduled time.

DATED: May 10, 2017

BY THE COURT:
s/Scott T. Varholak
United States Magistrate Judge

3

Should the Motion for Clarification be granted and the Court declare the pending
Motion to Dismiss moot, discovery will remain stayed pending determination of any
renewed Motion to Dismiss.
4