Samples v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying 5 Defendant Rubin Lublin TN, PLLC's Motion to Stay Discovery and Pretrial Deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley, Jr on November 6, 2014. (mailed to pro se plaintiff) (AYB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
MICHELLE B. SAMPLES,
Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:14-CV-408-TAV-CCS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
Now before the Court is Defendant Rubin Lublin TN, PLLC’s Motion to Stay Discovery
and Pretrial Deadlines [Doc. 5]. Rubin Lublin moves the Court to enter an Order staying
discovery and other pretrial deadlines in this case, pending ruling upon the Motion to Dismiss
filed by Rubin Lublin on September 26, 2014. In its Motion to Dismiss, Rubin Lublin maintains
that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter, based upon a pending action in Knox County
Chancery Court, and that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. Rubin Lublin argues that this
case is likely to be dismissed and engaging in discovery would be a waste of resources.
A pending motion to dismiss is not ordinarily a basis, in and of itself, for staying
discovery in a case. As the court in Guild Associates Inc. v. Bio-Energy (Washington) LLC,
2014 WL 2767605 (S.D. Ohio 2014), explained, “[O]ne argument that is usually deemed
insufficient to support a stay of discovery is that a party intends to file, or has already filed, a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) or motion for judgment on the

pleadings. Id. at *5; see also Porter v. Five Star Quality Care-MI, LLC, 2014 WL 823418, at *2
(E.D. Mich. Mar. 3, 2014) (“[C]ourts likewise have recognized that ‘[t]he mere filing of a
dispositive motion . . . does not warrant the issuance of a stay [of discovery] under Rule
26(c).’”).
The Court finds that Rubin Lublin’s filing of a Motion to Dismiss pursuant Rule 12 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not amount to good cause supporting a stay of discovery
in this case, and the Court finds that the granting of the requested stay would unnecessarily delay
the adjudication of this case. Accordingly, the Motion to Stay Discovery and Pretrial Deadlines
[Doc. 5] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/ C. Clifford Shirley, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

2