Rudakas v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Filing
42
ORDER denying 41 motion to stay. If Plaintiff chooses to pursue the alternative relief of dismissal, Plaintiff must file a motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) on or before Tuesday, February 28, 2017. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 2/15/2017. (VMF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
LAUREN ANNE RUDAKAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 6:16-cv-350-Orl-37DCI
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Stay or, in the
Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice (Doc. 41), filed February 13, 2017.
Defendant removed this uninsured motorist benefits action on February 29, 2016.
A week later, Defendant answered the Complaint. (Doc. 9 (“Answer”).) In due course,
the Court issued a Case Management and Scheduling Order providing a discovery
deadline of May 1, 2017. (Doc. 14 (“CMSO”).) In the present motion, Plaintiff seeks an
indefinite stay of all CMSO deadlines until such time that she is able to consult with
doctors. (Doc. 41 “Motion”).) As grounds, Plaintiff represents that: (1) she will be
prejudiced and suffer irreparable harm if she is forced to proceed under the current
deadlines in the CMSO; (2) a stay of the proceedings is the only way to ensure that the
parties are not subjected to costly litigation while Plaintiff continues further treatment; and
(3) Defendant does not oppose such relief. (Id. at 3–5.) Alternatively, Plaintiff requests
that the Court dismiss the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b). (Id. at 4.) Upon consideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s requested relief is
inappropriate, and the Motion is, therefore, due to be denied.
A district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power
to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Although the Court
recognizes Plaintiff’s interest in avoiding potentially unnecessary and costly discovery, an
unlimited stay of the proceedings is not the appropriate remedy. See, e.g., Prodoehl v.
Strassner, No. 07-0699-WS-B, 2008 WL 2782884, at *1 (S.D. Ala. Jul. 8, 2008) (denying
plaintiff’s motion to stay, in part, because plaintiff sought an indefinite extension of
discovery deadlines).
Plaintiff’s argument for dismissal under Rule 41(b) is equally unavailing, as that
provision permits a defendant to move for dismissal of an action where a plaintiff has
failed to prosecute or comply with a court order. Nevertheless, the Court will permit
Plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss this action under Rule 41(a)(2) upon proper motion. See
Ter
Maat
v.
Fla.
Air
Acad.-Melbourne,
Inc.,
No.
6:08-cv-402-Orl-19GJK,
2008 WL 2397610, at *1 n.2 (M.D. Fla. June 10, 2008) (recognizing that once a
Defendant has answered the complaint, a plaintiff must move the court for dismissal
under Rule 42(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Stay or, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss
Without Prejudice (Doc. 41) is DENIED.
2.
If Plaintiff chooses to pursue the alternative relief of dismissal, Plaintiff must
file a motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(2) on or before Tuesday, February 28, 2017,
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on February 15, 2017.
2
Copies:
Counsel of Record
3
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?