Colceriu v. Barbary et al

Filing 30

ORDER granting 28 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 2/16/2021. (BEE)

Case 8:20-cv-01425-MSS-AAS Document 30 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID 189

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
LIGIA COLCERIU,
on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:20-cv-1425-MSS-AAS

JAMIE BARBARY a/k/a/ JAMIE
ENGELHARDT, ENGELHARDT & CO.,
LLC,
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
ORDER
Defendants Jamie Barbary a/k/a Jamie Engelhardt and Engelhardt &
Co., LLC (collectively, the defendants) moves to stay discovery pending the
court’s ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. 28). Plaintiff Ligia
Colceriu did not respond in opposition to the motion, and the time for doing so
has expired. See Local Rule 3.01(c), M.D. Fla. (“If a party fails to timely
respond, the motion is subject to treatment as unopposed.”)
A district court has broad discretion in regulating discovery. See Moore
v. Potter, 141 Fed. Appx. 803, 808 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding the district court
did not abuse its “broad discretion” when entering stay to resolve motion to
dismiss). The Eleventh Circuit instructs that facial challenges to the legal
sufficiency of a claim or defense should be resolved before discovery begins.
1

Case 8:20-cv-01425-MSS-AAS Document 30 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID 190

Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997).
The “party seeking the stay must prove good cause and reasonableness.”
Arriaga-Zacarias v. Lewis Taylor Farms, Inc., No. 7:08-CV-32-HL, 2008 WL
4544470, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 10, 2008) (citing Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D.
651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing
such facial challenges, a court must take a “preliminary peek at the merits of
the dispositive motion to assess the likelihood that such motion will be
granted.” Id. To determine whether a stay is appropriate, a court must
“balance the harm produced by the delay in discovery against the possibility
that the motion will be granted and entirely eliminate the need for such
discovery.” Id.
The gravamen of the defendants’ motion to dismiss is that the plaintiff
lacks standing to bring this action. (See Doc. 24). Without remarking on the
merits of the defendants’ motion, the court finds good cause for a temporary
stay of discovery. The defendants’ motion to dismiss presents a nonfrivolous
challenge to the plaintiff’s standing. In addition, the plaintiff did not respond
in opposition to the temporary discovery stay. Although such a stay will delay
the plaintiff’s efforts to obtain discovery, the resulting harm is minimal when
compared to the benefits of saved time, money, and resources in the event the
court determines it the plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action.
Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to stay discovery (Doc. 28) is
2

Case 8:20-cv-01425-MSS-AAS Document 30 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID 191

GRANTED. Discovery is STAYED pending the court’s ruling on the
defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 24).
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on February 16, 2021.

3