Moore v. Concord Finance, Inc. et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting 8 motion to stay. Signed on 12/7/17 by Chief District Judge Greg Kays. (Strodtman, Tracy)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
CHRISTINA MOORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CONCORD FINANCE, INC, d/b/a
SPEEDY CASH, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-CV-00873-DGK

ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY STAY
Now before the Court is Plaintiff Christina Moore’s (“Moore”) Motion for Stay (Doc. 8),
Defendants’ Response (Doc. 17), and Moore’s Reply (Doc. 19). After careful review and
consideration, the Court GRANTS Moore’s Motion to Stay (Doc. 8) pending the Court’s
decision on her motion for remand.
This Court possesses “broad discretion to stay proceedings as incident to its power to
control its own docket.” See Burns v. EGS Fin. Care, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-06173, 2016 WL
7535365, at *1 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 12, 2016). Here, the Defendants do not oppose a stay. They
agree that any delay caused by the stay will not harm or prejudice any party. Because of the
early stage of this litigation and the parties’ agreement that a stay will not cause harm or
prejudice, the Court grants a stay pending a decision on Moore’s motion for remand.
As a secondary issue, Moore argues that Defendants have failed to timely file reply
suggestions to their motion to dismiss (Doc. 4). Moore argues that a stay of Defendants’ reply
briefing could lead to unnecessary delay. Moore’s complaint contradicts her argument that in the
event of a stay, “delay will not prejudice or harm any party.” Pl’s Suggestions in Supp. of Mot.

to Stay, at 1-2 (Doc. 9). If the Court does not remand the case, Defendants will have 14 days
following the Court’s ruling to file reply suggestion in support of their motion to dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: December 7, 2017

/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2