Thomas et al v. Chambers et al

Filing 226

ORDER AND REASONS granting 224 MOTION for Partial Lift of Stay Order. The 179 motion to set expert fees is hereby REOPENED. The Court requests that Magistrate Judge Roby consider the motion forthwith. All other aspects of the litigation shall remain stayed, pursuant to the Court's 2019 220 stay order for the reasons stated herein. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 9/21/2021.(mm) (NEF: MJ)

Case 2:18-cv-04373-SSV-KWR Document 226 Filed 09/21/21 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KIERRA THOMAS, ET AL.
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 18-4373

RANDALL CHAMBERS, ET AL.

SECTION “R” (4)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiffs Kierra Thomas, Antoine Clark, and
Shirley Harris’s motion 1 to lift the Court’s May 29, 2019 stay order. 2
Defendants Randall Chambers, God’s Way Trucking, LLC, and Canal
Insurance Company oppose the motion. 3 The Court considers the motion
below.

I.

BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a 2017 motor-vehicle crash in Orleans Parish,

Louisiana.4 On April 23, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion to set expert fees,
after a dispute regarding the fees owed to defendants’ life-care planning

1
2
3
4

R. Doc. 224.
R. Doc. 220.
R. Doc. 225.
R. Doc. 1 ¶ 1.

Case 2:18-cv-04373-SSV-KWR Document 226 Filed 09/21/21 Page 2 of 4

expert, Stanford McNabb, for his attendance at a deposition. 5 This Court
referred plaintiffs’ motion to Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby, 6 who in
turn granted oral argument on the motion. 7
On May 29, 2019, while plaintiffs’ motion was still pending, the Court
stayed and administratively closed the case because the Court had received
information that certain witnesses and/or counsel in the case were involved
in an ongoing federal criminal investigation. 8 The Court ordered that the
stay “applies to all aspects of this litigation, including any pending motions
currently before Magistrate Judge Roby.”9 The order further stated that
“[t]he matter may be reopened upon the motion of either party
demonstrating that the criminal investigation has concluded, at which time
a new trial date will be set.” 10
On June 29, 2021, plaintiffs moved to lift the stay, only as to the feedispute motion.11 They represent that Stanford McNabb filed suit in state
court against plaintiffs’ counsel, her law firm, and plaintiffs, seeking the
expert fees that were the subject of the dispute before Magistrate Judge Roby

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

R. Doc. 179.
R. Doc. 182.
R. Doc. 199.
R. Doc. 220 at 1.
Id. at 2.
Id.
R. Doc. 224.
2

Case 2:18-cv-04373-SSV-KWR Document 226 Filed 09/21/21 Page 3 of 4

in this case.12 Plaintiffs seek to lift the stay to have the fee dispute resolved
in the federal case.13 Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds that the
criminal investigation has not concluded.14

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court’s May 29, 2019 stay order provided that “th[e] stay applies

to all aspects of this litigation, including any pending motions before
Magistrate Judge Roby.”15 The fee dispute underlying McNabb’s state-court
complaint was the subject of a motion pending before Magistrate Judge Roby
at the time of the stay. The fee dispute arises out of discovery conducted in
this case. Given that the stay order applied to “all aspects of this litigation,
including . . . motions before Magistrate Judge Roby,”16 it clearly covered
McNabb’s expert-fee dispute with plaintiffs and their counsel. McNabb
therefore circumvented the order by pursuing his fees in state court. The
Court finds that the circumstances warrant lifting the stay so that the motion
to set expert fees may be resolved. The motion does not concern the merits
of this case, nor will its resolution compromise any party’s rights in the

12
13
14
15
16

R. Doc. 224-1 at 2.
Id. at 5.
R. Doc. 225 at 1, 5-6.
R. Doc. 220 at 2.
Id.
3

Case 2:18-cv-04373-SSV-KWR Document 226 Filed 09/21/21 Page 4 of 4

criminal case. It pertains merely to a collateral fee dispute, and can be
reopened and resolved without undermining the reasons for the 2019 stay.
The Court therefore grants plaintiff’s motion, and lifts the stay only as to the
motion to set expert fees 17 pending before Magistrate Judge Roby.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to
partially lift the stay. The motion to set expert fees 18 is hereby REOPENED.
The Court requests that Magistrate Judge Roby consider the motion
forthwith. All other aspects of the litigation shall remain stayed, pursuant to
the Court’s 2019 stay order.19

21st
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of September, 2021.

_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19

R. Doc. 179.
Id.
R. Doc. 220.
4