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)

Download PDF
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?