Sallie H. Seay Estate et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 36

ORDER granting 28 Motion to Stay Discovery; granting 34 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply 16 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings ; granting 24 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply 16 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings . The responsive brief filed on 12/8/15 is duly considered. Replies due by 1/6/2016. Discovery is stayed pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss and the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 12/11/15. (cmr)

Download PDF
itli$slNAL . - THE I'NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R + H E SOIITHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DUBI,IN DIVISION IN ..'.I t0r5Dtcil Aq5-l SALLIE H. SEAY ESTATE JONATHANA. SEAY, Pfaintiffs, cv 315-086 WELLS WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., FARGO INSURANCE, ASSURANT INSURANCE CO. , and STANDARD GUARANTY INSURANCE CO. , Detendants. ORDER Pending Fargo Bank, on November 23, t.heir pleadings Pfaintiffs extension deadfine. of time Pl,aintif to motion responsive briefs Accordingfy, filed a f has al-so filed to for On the extend t.o correspond dismiss. wilh Indeed, t.o both motions Lo the a mot.ion to motion wefls remand. to well-s motion to Plaintiffs' response motion motion").: f il-ed a motion on the Assurant Defendant Fargo to the We11s Fargo motion f il-ed their t.he l-at.ter and Insurance's ("Wells Pl-ainEiffs response deadline Co.'s Insurance Fargo and wefls 20f5, Lo respond Guaranty are Defendants amended complaint N.A., the matLer captioned f 's Pl-aintif judgment time the Co. and Standard Insurance dismiss in by for Fargo moLion (doc. no. 24) is GRANTED. The Court will duly r -r hLo e r r !aec n r.r\rh e i r r c r yv r Ad.li the parli.es rrnf iI hriaf have f il-ed , T a n r r aL r w v t . 6 t extension h^v?ar -l qq"\ f .\ i^ ct- rrr qf ^i/ 26L, .li qr-nrrcrrr bafance the f he - ^ F -1 v fif f h i < rq yv enfiralrr motion for stav The Court of discoverv has "broad imin:rrr i eerrae some important el l- \,r 55I , Rtl-^i 1988)). l .rn aspect 652 (M.D. (-rtn.Fr'\f Before q deciding ShOUld; harm produced anj or^nicd (M.D.N.C. COuI.C !Lrr .r ^ ^ s aYq-Lrr-L The to nral qyrp.i rt l\/ a11ow Defendants Fl-ood, 176 F.R.D. mnq.\yr f i6n:l hereby GRANTED, rrnt- i I 263 to hriefs. mot.ions. rli qi /.rrr.\l-in.r 2nlq a motion filed F e l - d m a nv . 121 F.R.D. Inc., also on the other Lhe case." El: renlw (doc, no. 34) is have R motion which may be dispositive be settled of f)e.pml'rcr t-.) f i le 2O16 a ruling 'ihl-,araht- .\n a consent -vlv time of Defendants pending f i l cti consider in by a delay j -h : f I i fL _ / , \) j -h F alimine1-p motion t-htr need discovery will fOr be SUCh This invofves weighing the likely cost.s discovery. proceeding with discovery. It may and burdens of nFek l-re halnfrr'l t -. ) f ^ k a e n r e l i m i r e r v i\/c mnrion of fhe al leoeri] rz disnosif its face nvu! r rcl crirls-)r, i I i f r r y r r there appears l-hrl- it to be an immediate r^ri I I l-ra the mel.its See if on and clear crr:nrcd aE 652 (int.ernal Fefdman, 176 F.R.D. at to citation and quotation omitted) . Because a cursory motion for judgment review of the motion on the pleadings the potentia-Z to be "case-dispositive, 653, discovery should be stayed to dismiss suggests that and the they have " Fel-dman, 175 F.R.D. at pending their consideration. 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th S e e C h u d a s a m av . M a z d a M o t o r C o r p . , Cir. 1997) ,. see al-so Moore v. (11th Cir. 28) the the Court y GRANTSDefendant.s' of the motion t.o dismiss iF The it- court wilf l-\a.^- ORDERENTEREDaL Augusta, T.)F.'amt\ar in discovery pleadings. r ] f c n a r r a rcrtr \ti D\,uv hereby STAYS afl and resol-ution F, App'x 803, 808 2005) . Thus, no. I4I Potler, -L aF e Georgia, fo i udqment on order an r -{-^r rd Lc (doc. pending action and motion issue .7 y this request regarding I this ?n1q DI STRI CT

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?