Morris v. Bailo

Filing 25

ORDER granting 24 Unopposed Motion for Temporary Stay of Discovery and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 7/19/2017. (LS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
WILLIAM L. MORRIS, as personal
representative of the estate of Ruth
Anne Morris
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-224-FtM-99CM

LYNDA M. BAILO,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Unopposed Motion for
Temporary Stay of Discovery and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 24) filed
on July 13, 2017.
On July 12, 2017, Defendant filed her Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
on the ground that Plaintiff’s instant suit is barred by the doctrines of res judicata
and collateral estoppel. Doc. 23. Defendant now seeks to stay discovery pending
resolution of her dispositive motion. Doc. 24 at 1. Defendant states requiring the
parties to engage in discovery would be costly, potentially unnecessary, and wasteful.
Plaintiff does not oppose the requested relief.
The Eleventh Circuit has noted that “[f]acial challenges to the legal sufficiency
of a claim or defense, such as a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim for
relief, should . . . be resolved before discovery begins.” Chudasama v. Mazda Motor

Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997). “Such a dispute always presents a purely

legal question; there are no issues of fact because the allegations contained in the
pleading are presumed to be true.”

Id. at 1367 (footnote omitted).

“Therefore,

neither the parties nor the court have any need for discovery before the court rules
on the motion.”

Id.; Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 n.2 (11th Cir. 2002).

Chudasama, however, does not stand for the proposition that all discovery in every
circumstance should be stayed pending a decision on a motion to dismiss. Koock v.

Sugar & Felsenthal, LLP, 2009 WL 2579307, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2009).
“Instead, Chudasama and its progeny ‘stand for the much narrower proposition that
courts should not delay ruling on a likely meritorious motion to dismiss while undue
discovery costs mount.” Id. (citing In re Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 2007 WL 1877887,
at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 28, 2007)).
In deciding whether to stay discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss,
the court must balance the harm produced by a delay in discovery against the
possibility that the motion will be granted and entirely eliminate the need for such
discovery. McCabe v. Foley, 233 F.R.D. 683, 685 (M.D. Fla. 2006) (citation omitted).
To this end, the court must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the dispositive
motion to see if it “appears to be clearly meritorious and truly case dispositive.” Id.
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, because there is a pending motion challenging the legal sufficiency of the
complaint, which after taking a “preliminary peek” the Court find meritorious, the
Court will stay discovery until the Court’s resolution of the Defendant’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 23). At

-2-

this early stage of proceedings, staying discovery until the Court rules on the motion
will cause Plaintiff little harm. Id.

Indeed, the Plaintiff does not object to the

requested relief.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Unopposed Motion for Temporary Stay of Discovery and Incorporated

Memorandum of Law (Doc. 24) is GRANTED.
2.

Discovery is STAYED pending the Court’s resolution of Defendant’s

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc.
23).
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 19th day of July, 2017.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-3-