Smith et al v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association et al

Filing 26

ORDER granting 11 Motion to Stay all proceedings, including discovery pending ruling by the Court on Defendants Rubin Lublin, LLC; Bret Chaness; and Peter Lublin's Motion to Strike the Complaint (doc. 8); Defendants HSBC Bank, National Associ ation and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association's Motion to Dismiss (doc. 10); and Defendants S. Andrew Shuping Jr, Shuping, Morse and Ross, LLP's Motion to Strike the Complaint (doc. 12). It is further ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days following the Court's ruling on Defendants' Motions, should this case remain pending before the Court, the parties are directed to meet and confer pursuant to Rule 26(f). Additionally, the parties are to file a Rule 26(f) Report within fourteen (14) days of the Rule 26(f) conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 7/20/2015. (ca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK DIVISION

MARVIN B. SMITH; and SHARON H.
SMITH,
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:15-cv-70

v.
HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION; WELLS FARGO BANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; S. ANDREW
SHUPING, JR.; SHUPING, MORSE AND
ROSS, LLP; RUBIN LUBLIN, LLC; BRET
CHANESS; and PETER LUBLIN,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants HSBC Bank, National Association, and
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association’s Motion to Stay Discovery Deadlines (doc. 11);
Defendants Rubin Lublin, LLC, Bret Chaness, and Peter Lublin’s Motion to Stay Discovery and
Pretrial Deadlines (doc. 14); and Defendants S. Andrew Shuping, Jr. and Shuping, Morse &
Ross, LLP’s Motion to Stay Pre-trial Deadlines (doc. 21). Plaintiffs have made no response or
objection to these motions. After careful consideration and for the reasons set forth below,
Defendants’ Motions are GRANTED.
The above-styled action was removed from the Superior Court of Glynn County,
Georgia, by Defendants HSBC Bank, National Association and Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association on June 9, 2015. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs objected to this removal (doc. 4) and filed a
Motion to Remand on June 15, 2015 (doc. 5). On June 16, 2015, Defendants Rubin Lublin,

LLC, Bret Chaness, and Peter Lublin filed a Motion to Strike the Complaint (doc. 8); Defendants
HSBC Bank, National Association and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association filed a Motion
to Dismiss (doc. 10) contemporaneously with their motion to stay; and Defendants S. Andrew
Shuping, Jr, Shuping, Morse and Ross, LLP also filed a Motion to Strike the Complaint
(doc. 12).
In their present motions to stay, Defendants request a stay of discovery and all deadlines
imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and the Court’s Local Rules 16 and 26, including
providing Initial Disclosures and conducting a Rule 26(f) Conference to file a Rule 26(f) Report,
in this matter pending a resolution of the Defendants’ Motions to Strike Complaint and Motion
to Dismiss.
With regard to the timing of discovery, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has
recognized that
[i]f the district court dismisses a nonmeritorious claim before discovery has
begun, unnecessary costs to the litigants and to the court system can be avoided.
Conversely, delaying ruling on a motion to dismiss such a claim until after the
parties complete discovery encourages abusive discovery and, if the court
ultimately dismisses the claim, imposes unnecessary costs. For these reasons, any
legally unsupported claim that would unduly enlarge the scope of discovery
should be eliminated before the discovery stage, if possible.
Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1368 (11th Cir. 1997) (footnotes omitted).
For these reasons, this Court, and other courts within the Eleventh Circuit, routinely find good
cause to stay the discovery period where there is a pending motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Habib v.
Bank of Am. Corp., No. 1:10-cv-04079-SCJ-RGV, 2011 WL 2580971, at *6 n.4 (N.D. Ga.
Mar. 15, 2011) (citing Chudasama, 123 F.3d at 1368) (“[T]here is good cause to stay discovery
obligations until the District Judge rules on [the defendant’s] motion to dismiss to avoid undue
expense to both parties.”); Berry v. Canady, No. 2:09-cv-765-FtM-29SPC, 2011 WL 806230,

2

at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 2, 2011) (quoting Moore v. Potter, 141 F. App’x 803, 807 (11th
Cir. 2005)) (“[N]either the parties nor the court have any need for discovery before the court
rules on the motion [to dismiss].”).
In the case at hand, the Court finds that good cause exists to stay this case until such time
as a ruling is made on Defendants’ motions and that no prejudice will accrue to the parties if
Defendants’ requests are granted.

Specifically, a ruling on Defendants’ Motions to Strike

Complaint (docs. 8, 12) and Motion to Dismiss (doc. 10) before the commencement of discovery
may save the parties time and resources by clarifying what issues the parties will need to address
in discovery.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all proceedings, including discovery,
are STAYED pending a ruling by the Court on Defendants Rubin Lublin, LLC; Bret Chaness;
and Peter Lublin’s Motion to Strike the Complaint (doc. 8); Defendants HSBC Bank, National
Association and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 10); and
Defendants S. Andrew Shuping, Jr, Shuping, Morse and Ross, LLP’s Motion to Strike the
Complaint (doc. 12). It is further ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days following the
Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Motions, should this case remain pending before the Court, the
parties are directed to meet and confer pursuant to Rule 26(f). Additionally, the parties are to file
a Rule 26(f) Report within fourteen (14) days of the Rule 26(f) conference.
SO ORDERED, this 20th day of July, 2015.

R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3