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)
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?