Rehburg v. Bob Hubbard Horse Transportation, Inc.

Filing 41

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter granting 31 Motion to Stay Pending a Decision on Motion to Remand.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
LISA M. REHBURG,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 1:18-CV-0531-MV-JHR

BOB HUBBARD HORSE TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY
PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO REMAND
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Case Pending Decision
on Motion to Remand [Doc. 31] filed January 4, 2019. No response has been filed and the time
for filing a response has expired. See D.N.M.LR-Civ.R. 7.4(a).
Plaintiff asks that the Court “issue a stay of all proceedings pending a ruling on the
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Case, except as necessary to resolve the Motion to Remand Case.”
[Doc. 31, *1]. Plaintiff refers to her Motion to Remand and in the alternative to Allow for Limited
Discovery [11] filed on August 15, 2018, and referred to the undersigned by presiding District
Judge Martha Vazquez on August 21, 2018. [Doc. 12]. Briefing was completed on the motion to
remand on October 3, 2018. [Doc. 21].
On January 9, 2019, the undersigned granted a stay pursuant to a different motion,
Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Stay Case Pending Assignment of New Counsel [Doc. 32], which
itself referred to attorney Raul A. Carrillo’s Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel [Doc. 29]. On
March 20, 2019, the Court denied Carrillo’s motion to withdraw. [Doc. 40]. The stay in effect
since January 9, 2019, was predicated on an expectation that the motion to withdraw would be
granted and was to expire by its terms no later than twenty days after entry of such an order. [Doc.
1

37]. As withdrawal was instead denied, it is reasonable to conclude that the stay initiated on
January 9, 2019, is no longer in effect.
The unresolved motion to stay is identified as an opposed motion: “Pursuant to D.N.M.
Local Rule 7.1, this motion is opposed by counsel for Defendant as unnecessary if Plaintiff’s
unopposed Motion to Stay case Pending Assignment of New Counsel is granted.” [Doc. 31, p. 2].
As no response was filed, the Court is unaware of any additional argument against granting the
unresolved motion to stay.
Plaintiff’s essential argument for a stay is that a decision to remand the case to state court
will remand the entire case for all remaining proceedings to take place in the state forum under its
own rules of procedure. Accordingly, Plaintiff argues that the Court should defer ruling on matters
that “are best decided by a new court upon remand.” [Doc. 31, p. 2, (citing In re Bear River
Drainage Dist., 267 F.2d 849, 851 (10th Cir. 1959) (other citations omitted))].
For the reasons cited, the Court concludes that a stay of other matters is appropriate pending
resolution of Plaintiff’s motion to remand [Doc 11] and therefore Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Case
Pending Decision on Motion to Remand [Doc. 31] is well-taken and should be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________________________
THE HONORABLE JERRY H. RITTER
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2