Aliff et al v. Resurgent Capital Services, LP et al
Filing
56
ORDER denying 52 Motion to Lift Stay; deferring ruling on 53 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 01/09/2017. (maa)
IN THE UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF
COURT
FOR THE
GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
JAMES
ALIFF
and
SAVANNAH
DIANNE
*
MCNORRILL,
on behalf of
*
themselves
and all
*
others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RESURGENT
*
CAPITAL
LVNV FUNDING,
SERVICES
and
LLC,
CV 114-198
*
*
Defendants.
*
ORDER
In
the
this
FDCPA
case,
by
Plaintiffs
filing
proofs
allege
of
that
claim
plaintiffs' bankruptcy proceedings.
on
Defendants
stale
violated
debts
in
the
The Court previously stayed
this matter pending the Eleventh Circuit's resolution of Johnson
v.
Midland Funding, LLC.
Eleventh Circuit
Midland
(See Doc.
issued its
Funding,
LLC,
823
51.)
On May 24,
ruling in Johnson.
F.3d
1334
(11th
2016, the
See Johnson v.
Cir.
2016).
On
October 11,
2016,
Plaintiff filed its Motion to Lift Stay and
Motion
Leave
to
for
Amend
Complaint.
(Docs.
52,
53.)
On
October 28, 2016, Defendants filed their responses in opposition
to
Plaintiff's
aforementioned
motions,
noting
Court has granted certiorari in Johnson.
Funding,
LLC,
823
F.3d
(U.S. Oct. 11, 2016).
1334,
cert,
Accordingly,
that
the
Supreme
See Johnson v. Midland
granted,
2016 WL 4944674
Defendants request that the
Court
deny
Plaintiffs'
motions
and
stay
this
case
pending
the
to
stay
Supreme Court's decision.
"The
District
proceedings
docket."
2015
WL
as
an
Court
has
incident
to
Luster
v.
at
*2
its
Sterling
9255553,
quotations
and
broad
discretion
power
Jewelers,
(N.D.
Ga.
citation omitted).
to
control
No.
Dec.
its
own
1:15-cv-2854-WSD,
17,
2015)
(internal
"A variety of circumstances
may justify a district court stay pending the resolution of a
related
Co.
case
in
Commc'ns,
another
221
court."
F.3d
1262,
Ortega
1264
Trujillo
(11th
Cir.
v.
Conover
&
When
a
2000).
decision by the Supreme Court may be dispositive, a stay pending
that decision is warranted.
Because
certiorari
are
warranted.1
ORDERED
DENIED.
the
that
issues
See Luster, 2015 WL 9255553, at *3.
on
which
the
likely dispositive
Accordingly,
Plaintiffs'
Supreme
in these
cases,
upon due consideration,
Motion
to
Lift
Court
Stay
granted
a stay is
IT IS HEREBY
(doc.
52)
is
This case shall be STAYED pending the Supreme Court's
decision in Johnson v.
Midland Funding,
LLC,
at which time any
party may move to lift the stay.
1 The Court has also stayed three similar cases on its docket for the same
reasons.
See Ford v. Quantum3 Group, LLC, et al. , No. l:15-cv-031, Doc. 31;
McNorrill v. Assets Acceptance, LLC, No. l:14-cv-210, Doc. 57; Willis v^
Cavalry Investments, LLC, et al., No. l:14-cv-227, Doc. 60.
2 Because the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson may prove dispositive, the
Court DEFERS ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (doc.
53) until the stay imposed hereby is lifted.
2
ORDER
January,
ENTERED
at
Augusta,
Georgia,
th
i.
9*
day
2017.
HALL
IITED/ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
of
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?