Kilpatrick v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying 21 Motion to Stay; denying 21 Motion for Rule 16 Conference. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 9/29/2014. (yha)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 14-cv-61572-BLOOM/Valle

WADE GAINES KILPATRICK,
individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC.,
CELEBRATION CRUISE LINE
MANAGEMENT, INC., and CELEBRATION
CRUISE LINE, LLC,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendants, Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc.,
Celebration Cruise Line Management, Inc., LLC, and Celebration Cruise Line, LLC’s Motion to
Stay and/or Motion for Rule 16 Conference, ECF No. [21]. The Court has reviewed the motion,
all supporting and opposing filings, and the record in this case, and is otherwise fully advised in
the premises.1 For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.
The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, in connection with unsolicited telemarketing calls
allegedly made by Defendants. See ECF No. [1]. Defendants seek a stay of this proceeding
based upon the principles outlines in Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936),
1

Defendants’ Motion was filed on August 27, 2014, and therefore, pursuant to the Local Rules, a
response was due by September 15, 2014. See S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1. Plaintiff’s response was duly
filed on September 15, 2014, making a reply due on September 25, 2014. See id. Although no
reply memorandum has been filed to date, the Motion was nonetheless ripe for adjudication after
September 25, 2014. Id.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 and 16 and Local Rule 7. See ECF No. [21]. Defendants claim that they are
currently being forced to defend themselves in numerous substantially similar class actions for
alleged violations of the TCPA, in United States District Courts throughout the country. See id.
Further, Defendants aver that the class actions are a significant burden upon the courts and
parties, involve substantially similar and overlapping issues, and require the parties to engage in
duplicative, burdensome discovery. See id. In support, the Defendants attach seven different
complaints representing cases pending throughout the country defended by counsel. See ECF No.
[21-1].
A district court has the authority to issue a stay of the proceedings pending resolution of a
related matter in another court. See Ortega Trujillo v. Conover & Co. Commc’ns, Inc., 221 F.3d
1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2000). The power to issue a stay arises from the district court’s inherent
authority to control its docket and manage its cases efficiently. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S.
681, 706 (1997). This has long been the rule. See Landis v. N. Am. Water Works & Elec. Co.,
299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (noting that “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power
inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of
time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”). So long as a stay does not prove
“immoderate”—that is to say, too long, too indefinite, or without proper justification—the
decision to stay is bounded only by the district court’s discretion. See Ortega Trujillo, 221 F.3d
at 1264; Landis, 299 U.S. at 254 (whether and how a stay should issue “calls for the exercise of
judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance”). “Federal
courts may exercise their discretion to stay proceedings when a stay would promote judicial
economy and efficiency.” 200 Leslie Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 2011 WL 2470344,
at *14 (S.D. Fla. June 21, 2011).

2

A review of the cases attached to the Defendants’ affidavit and the complaint at issue
warrant the denial of the Defendants’ request to stay these proceedings. While it may appear that
the cases all arise from substantially similar alleged phone calls, different parties are involved
and different claims are alleged. A stay of this case would not promote judicial economy or
efficiency as there would remain unresolved issues requiring judicial labor in this forum. It is,
therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED Defendants, Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., Celebration
Cruise Line Management, Inc., LLC, and Celebration Cruise Line, LLC’s Motion to Stay and/or
Motion for Rule 16 Conference, ECF No. [21], is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 29th day of September, 2014.

____________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

3