Cervantes v. Maschmeyer Concrete Company of Florida

Filing 23

ORDERED: 1. Defendant Maschmeyer Concrete Company of Florida's Motion to Stay 11 is DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 11/26/2024. (AB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
CHAD CERVANTES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:24-cv-1021-CEH-AAS

MASCHMEYER CONCRETE
COMPANY OF FLORIDA,
Defendant.
ORDER
This action comes before the Court on Defendant Maschmeyer Concrete
Company of Florida’s Motion to Stay. Doc. 11. Plaintiff Chad Cervantes responds in
opposition (Doc. 19). Upon review and consideration, the Court will deny the motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff sues Defendant for several alleged violations of the Family and Medical
Leave Act (“FMLA”) 28 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. See generally Doc. 1. In addition to the
instant lawsuit, Plaintiff has filed a charge of discrimination (against Defendant) with
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging disability
discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
See Docs. 5, 11. Plaintiff indicates that, upon the conclusion of the EEOC’s
investigation, he plans to move to add his ADA claims to this case. Doc. 1 ¶ 14.
Defendant thus seeks a stay of this action while Plaintiff exhausts his
administrative remedies for the ADA claims. Doc. 11 at 2–3. It argues that a stay

would be more efficient than litigating both matters at once and could avoid
duplicative discovery proceedings and litigation. Id.
Plaintiff opposes a stay. See Doc. 18. First, he notes that the FMLA, under
which the instant lawsuit is brought, permits him to file suit without fulfilling any other
administrative prerequisites. Id. at 2–3. Further, he argues that his ability to conduct
discovery in this case could be critical to resolving the matter and that this interest is
not outweighed by the risk of overlap with EEOC proceedings. Id. at 3. Considering
that the investigation may proceed for an indeterminate length of time for reasons
outside of his control, Plaintiff argues that staying this case would only hinder the
litigation’s progress and prolong this dispute. Id.
Courts have broad discretion in managing their own dockets. Clinton v. Jones,
520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). This includes the authority to stay proceedings pending the
resolution of a related proceeding in another forum. Ortega Trujillo v. Conover & Co.
Commc'ns, 221 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff is right that a court may choose to stay a case pending the resolution of
related proceedings in its discretion—but is not required to do so.1 Here, upon review
of the briefing, Defendant does not show that unusual circumstances justify the
requested stay, that prejudice or an undue burden will result if the Court does not
impose a stay, or that a stay is otherwise necessary in this action. The FMLA indeed

Further, Plaintiff is right that James v. Pro. Cont. Servs., Inc., No. CV-422-296, 2023 WL
10365247 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 15, 2023), which Defendant cites for the proposition that trial courts
in this Circuit favor a stay in similar scenarios, is distinguishable because the Parties in that
matter jointly sought a stay. Id. at *1.
1

2

allows Plaintiff to file suit without fulfilling any administrative prerequisites, and
proceeding with the instant lawsuit would not be inefficient or unreasonably
prejudicial to Defendant. Therefore, as Defendant has not established adequate
grounds for staying the case, the motion will be denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Defendant Maschmeyer Concrete Company of Florida’s Motion to Stay
(Doc. 11) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on November 26, 2024.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

3