Smith v. University Community Hospital, Inc.
Filing
28
ORDER granting 26 motion to stay discovery pending the ruling on Community Hospital's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 10/10/2018. (DMP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
BEN SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 8:18-cv-270-T-AAS
UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL, INC. d/b/a FLORIDA
HOSPITAL CARROLLWOOD,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
ORDER
University Community Hospital (Community Hospital) moves to stay
discovery pending the ruling on Community Hospital’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings. (Doc. 26). Ben Smith opposes Community Hospital’s motion. (Doc. 27).
Community Hospital’s motion for judgment on the pleadings presents a purely legal
question and requires no discovery. Therefore, Community Hospital’s motion to stay
discovery is GRANTED.
I.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Smith sues Community Hospital claiming violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Florida Consumer Collections Practices Act
(FCCPA). (Doc. 1). Mr. Smith’s causes of action arise out of medical treatment he
received from Community Hospital (doing business as Florida Hospital Carrollwood).
(Id. at 2). According to Mr. Smith, Community Hospital violated the FDCPA and
FCCPA when Community Hospital (1) filed and posted a lien on Mr. Smith’s
1
outstanding medical bills in Hillsborough County’s public records and (2) sent a copy
of the hospital lien to Mr. Smith despite knowing Mr. Smith was represented by
counsel. (Doc. 1, p. 3).
Community Hospital denies it violated the FDCPA and FCCPA. (Doc. 10).
Community Hospital moved for judgment on the pleadings and, alternatively,
summary judgment. (Docs. 23, 24).1 Mr. Smith responded to Community Hospital’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. 25).
Community Hospital moves to stay discovery pending the ruling on its motion
for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. 26). Mr. Smith opposes the stay. (Doc. 27).
II.
ANALYSIS
A court, for good cause, may stay discovery to protect parties from undue
burden or expense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762
F.2d 1550, 1558–59 (11th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). A court should resolve facial
challenges to the legal sufficiency of a claim, which present purely legal questions,
before discovery begins. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367
(11th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).
Disposing of nonmeritorious claims early
prevents litigants from incurring unnecessary discovery costs. Id. at 1367–68.
A defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is a facial challenge to the
legal sufficiency to the complaint, which presents a purely legal question. Horsley v.
Community Hospital submitted its motion for judgment on the pleadings and its
memorandum of law in support separately. (Docs. 23, 24). Local Rule 3.01(a) requires a
party to include its memorandum of law with its motion in a single document. The parties
are again reminded to strictly follow the Local Rules. (See Doc. 22) (addressing the parties’
failure to comply with the Local Rules).
1
2
Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 n.2 (11th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). The standard for
deciding motions for judgment on the pleadings is the same for motions to dismiss:
“whether the count stated a claim for relief.” Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada v.
Imperial Premium Fin., LLC, Nos. 17-10189, 17-10415, ___F.3d___, 2018 WL
4443054, at * 5 (11th Cir. Sept. 18, 2018) (citations omitted). As a result, neither the
parties nor the court require discovery before ruling on a motio n for judgment on the
pleadings. Horsley, 304 F.3d 1125 at 1131 n.2 (citation omitted).
Community Hospital’s motion for judgment on the pleadings presents a purely
legal question that requires no discovery. In its motion for judgment on the pleadings,
Community Hospital argues filing a hospital lien is not considered a debt collection
act under the FDCPA or FCCPA. (Doc. 24, pp. 3–4). Community Hospital also claims
sending an informational letter about a hospital lien is not considered a debt
collection act under the FDCPA or FCCPA. (Id. at 4–6). Neither the court nor the
parties require discovery to resolve these issues Community Hospital raised.
When it answered Mr. Smith’s complaint, Community Hospital included two
documents central to Mr. Smiths claims: the letter Florida Hospital Carrollwood sent
Mr. Smith about its hospital lien and the “Hospital Claim of Lien” Florida Hospital
Carrollwood filed with Hillsborough County. (Docs. 10-1, 10-2). In his responses to
Community Hospital’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion to stay
discovery, Mr. Smith did not dispute the authenticity of the documents Community
Hospital attached to its answer. (Docs. 25, 27). Courts may consider documents
attached to answers when deciding Rule 12(c) motions for judgment on the pleadings
3
when the documents are central to a claim and authenticity is undisputed. Horsley,
304 F.3d at 1134–35.
Therefore, the court can consider Community Hospital’s
attachments to its answer, but no other documents are necessary to decide its motion
for judgment on the pleadings.
Mr. Smith argues the court should grant him leave to amend his complaint if
it grants Community Hospital’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. 27, pp.
3–4). In that scenario, Mr. Smith’s amended complaint could possibly change the
scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). A court should stay
discovery when the scope of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1) could change.
See
Chudasama, 123 F.3d at 1368 (discussing how a district court hindered the “needs of
the case” analysis under Rule 26 when it permitted discovery to continue while a
dispositive motion remained pending). So, the possibility of an amended complaint
from Mr. Smith supports granting a stay of discovery until the ruling on Community
Hospital’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Mr. Smith began his lawsuit against Community Hospital on February 2,
2018—eight months ago. (Doc. 1). The current discovery deadline is April 30, 2019,
and trial is not until November 2019. (Doc. 17). This case is still in its early stages
and a brief stay of the discovery deadline will still allow the parties to secure a just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination of the issues in this case consistent with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, Community Hospital’s motion to stay
discovery pending the ruling on its motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.2
Community Hospital’s motion for judgment on the pleadings includes an alternative motion
for summary judgment. (Docs. 23, 24). A court abuses its discretion when it denies a party
2
4
III.
CONCLUSION
Community Hospital’s motion for judgment on the pleadings presents a purely
legal question that requires no discovery. Further, briefly staying discovery until the
ruling on Community Hospital’s motion for judgment on the pleadings will prevent
the parties from incurring undue expenses due to discovery. Therefore, Community
Hospital’s motion to stay discovery (Doc. 26) is GRANTED.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on October 10, 2018.
the chance to obtain discovery that relates to a summary judgment motion. Panola Land
Buyers Ass’n, 762 F.2d at 1560 (quotation and citations omitted). Thus, in light of the stay
of discovery, the court will not consider the alternative motion for summary judgment and
instead will consider the motion under the standard for motions for judgment on the
pleadings only.
5
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?