Gibson v. Scap et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying 48 Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/29/2011. (CR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
CHARLES GIBSON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:11-cv-949-T-33EAJ

GEZA SCAP, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendants’
Motion to Stay Proceedings.

(Doc. # 48).

Plaintiff Gibson

filed a Response in opposition thereto. (Doc. # 49). For the
reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.
In the motion, Defendants seek a stay of the case until
the Court enters its ruling on the pending Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. # 3) and Motion to Transfer (Doc. # 17). Defendants wish
to avoid incurring attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses in
responding to discovery should their motions be granted. (Doc.
# 48 at 2).
The Court “must take an active role in managing cases on
[its] docket.” Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353,
1366 (11th Cir. 1997).

If this Court were to grant the

motion, the dates established in the Case Management and
Scheduling Order would be meaningless.

Thus, the case would

not be on track for a speedy determination, as required by
Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
As stated in Chudasama, 123 F.3d at 1366, this Court
enjoys broad discretion “in deciding how best to manage the
cases before [it]” and, under the circumstances of this case,
the Court determines that it is appropriate to deny the
motion.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:
Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. # 48) is
DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
29th day of September, 2011.

Copies to: All Counsel of Record

2