Weatherspoon v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying 12 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 3/20/2017. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SHARON WEATHERSPOON

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 17-98-SDD-RLB

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (R. Doc. 12) filed on March 15, 2017.
Sharon Weatherspoon (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action on or about February 10, 2017 in
state court, naming as defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association (“Chase”) and
B&BA, LLC (“B&BA”). (R. Doc. 1-1, at 1-8).
Chase removed the action on February 22, 2017, asserting that neither Chase nor B&BA
had been served with the Petition at the time of removal. (R. Doc. 1 at 3). Chase subsequently
filed documents, however, indicating that service of process was made (or attempted) on Chase
on February 21, 2016,1 and that service of process was made (or attempted) on B&BA on
February 20, 2016. (R. Doc. 4-1 at 21-24).
On March 10, 2017, Plaintiff moved for an order staying the proceedings until April 11,
2017, and ordering B&BA to retain counsel by April 10, 2017 because it is a legal entity that
cannot proceed without counsel. (R. Doc. 9). The Court denied the motion on the basis that
Plaintiff may seek entry of a default pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
if B&BA does not timely file an answer or appropriate defenses. (R. Doc. 10).

1

Chase has asserted that service on it was improper as it was made through CT Corporation, which is not
a registered agent for service of process for Chase in Louisiana. (R. Doc. 2 at 1 n.1).

On March 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand. (R. Doc. 11). In support of
remand, Plaintiff argues that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant
to the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. (R. Doc. 11-1 at 2-7). Plaintiff also asserts that the member of B&BA who consented to
removal on behalf of B&BA did not have the authority to do so because she is not an attorney.
(R. Doc. 11-1 at 2).
The same day, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Stay Discovery. (R. Doc. 12). Plaintiff
asserts that a stay is required because, in addition to lacking subject matter jurisdiction, this
Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff. (R. Doc. 12 at 1).
Rule 26(c) allows the court to issue a protective order after a showing of good cause “to
protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense.” Fed. R .Civ .P. 26(c)(1). Rule 26(c)’s “good cause” requirement indicates that the
party seeking a protective order has the burden “to show the necessity of its issuance, which
contemplates a particular and specific demonstration of fact as distinguished from stereotyped
and conclusory statements.” In re Terra Int'l, Inc., 134 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir.1998) (quoting
United States v. Garrett, 571 F.2d 1323, 1326 n. 3 (5th Cir.1978)). “A trial court has broad
discretion and inherent power to stay discovery until preliminary questions that may dispose of
the case are determined.” Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir.1987).
Plaintiff has not established that a stay is merited in light of the pending motion to
remand or Plaintiff’s assertion that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over her.2 The filing of

2

The Court does not share Plaintiff’s concerns regarding personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff initiated this
action in the 19th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, therefore submitting to the
personal jurisdiction of the state court. Chase removed the action to this Court, which is “the district
court of the United States for the district and division within which such action” was pending in state
court. 28 U.S.C. § 1446. By submitting to the state court’s personal jurisdiction, Plaintiff has submitted
to this Court’s personal jurisdiction upon removal. See Schnabel v. Lui, 302 F.3d 1023, 1037 (9th Cir.
2

a motion to remand does not automatically stay discovery. Plaintiff provides no analysis or legal
support in support of a stay of discovery given the procedural posture of this case. In light of the
record, the court will not issue the relief requested.
That said, the Court will reset the Scheduling Conference set for on April 27, 2017 as
needed if B&BA does not make an appearance and/or if necessary with regard to the
adjudication of the pending motion to remand. The parties are also reminded that discovery may
not commence until the required conference pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (R. Doc. 12) is DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 20, 2017.

S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2002) (“When a state court action is removed to federal court, the removal is treated as if the original
action had been commenced in federal court. Thus, when examining the court’s exercise of personal
jurisdiction and assuming removal is proper, the removed plaintiffs should be treated no differently from
plaintiffs who file in federal court originally.”) (citation and footnote omitted); Xyrous Commc'ns LLC v.
Bulgarian Telecomms. Co. AD, No. 09-396, 2009 WL 2877084, at *7 (E.D. Va. Sept. 4, 2009) (“In
removal cases, a federal court obtains personal jurisdiction over a party if the state court from which that
case was removed had personal jurisdiction over that party.”).
3