Lovett v. Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads
ORDER entered and filed 12/4/17 GRANTING Plaintiff's 4 Motion to Stay, as outlined. The case is STAYED until March 5, 2018. The Court further ORDERS Plaintiff to file a status report regarding the Right to Sue letter on March 5, 2018. (See Order and Foot Note for Specifics) (Signed by District Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr. on 11/4/17). Copies provided as directed 12/5/17. (ecav, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Newport News Division
KIMBERLY T. LOVETT,
Civil Action No. 4:17cv73
TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT COMMISSION
OF HAMPTON ROADS,
d/b/a HAMPTON ROADS TRANSIT,
OPINION & ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Kimberly T. Lovett's
("Plaintiffs" or "Lovett's") Motion to Stay. Doc. 4. For the reasons stated herein, the Court
GRANTS the Motion to Stay.
Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this Court on June 30, 2017. Doc. 1 ("Compl."). She
alleged that Defendant Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads d/b/a Hampton
Roads Transit ("Defendant" or "HRT") violated the Equal Pay Act ("EPA") and the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"). See generally id
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Stay on October 26, 2017. Doc. 5. Defendant filed a
Motion to Dismiss on October 30, 2017. Doc. 6. After receiving an extension from the Court,
Defendant responded in opposition to the instant Motion to Stay on November 15, 2017. Doc.
14. Plaintiff replied in support of the instant Motion to Stay on November 21,2017. Doc. 17.
Plaintiff also amended her Complaint, with Defendant's consent, on November 28, 2017.
See Doc. 19 ("Am. Compl."). She alleged the same two (2) claims for relief that she previously
alleged. See id.
"The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to
control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for the litigants." Landis v. N. Am. Co.. 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). "[P]roper use
of this authority calls for the exercise of judgment which must weigh competing interests and
maintain an even balance." Williford v. Armstrong World Indus.. 715 F.2d 124, 127 (4th Cir.
1983) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "The party seeking a stay must justify it
by clear and convincing circumstances outweighing potential harm to the party against whom it
is operative." Williford. 715 F.2d at 127. "Specifically, a district court should consider three
factors: '(1) the interests of judicial economy; (2) hardship and equity to the moving party if the
action is not stayed; [and] (3) potential prejudice to the non-moving party.'" Sehler v. Prospect
Mortg.. LLC. No. I:13cv473, 2013 WL 5184216, at *2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 16, 2013) (quoting
Johnson v. DePuv Orthopaedics. Inc.. No. 3:12cv2274, 2012 WL 4538642, at *2 (D.S.C. Oct. 1,
Plaintiff requests a stay until March 5, 2018. Doc. 5 at 1. She states that she filed a
Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on
September 3,2017, regarding a Title VII claim based on the same facts as this litigation. Id. at 1.
4. She seeks the stay until the first business day following the expiration of the one hundred
eighty (180) days for the EEOC to investigate the charge. Id. at 1.
Plaintiff has met her burden of demonstrating the need for a stay.
The cases that
Defendant cites where courts denied stays involve clearer patterns of delay. See, e.g.. Arora v.
James. No. 5:14cvl8, 2015 WL 1352097, at *2 (D.S.C. Mar. 24, 2015) (case pending for almost
a year). Here, the delay was only two (2) months, and the shortness of that delay suggests that
negligence is more likely the cause of the delay than any intentional attempt to prolong the case.'
Plaintiff is also correct that judicial economy favors combining claims that are based on
essentially the same facts and that she could suffer claim preclusion in the absence of a stay.
See, e.g.. Wilkes v. Wv. Dep't of Emolovment Div. of Labor Standards. 314 F.3d 501, 505 (10th
Cir. 2002), as amended (Jan. 14, 2003) (applying claim preclusion to a Title VII claim in light of
judgment on EPA and FLSA claims). Plaintiff is incorrect in her assertion that she cannot seek
an early Right to Sue letter, as there is no binding authority on point, and while the Westem
District of Virginia case she cited supports her argument, courts in the Eastern District of
Virginia have thus far adopted the opposite view. Sm Tavlor v. Cardiology Clinic. Inc.. No.
4:14cv00046, 2015 WL 770439, at *3 (W.D. Va. Feb. 24, 2015) (finding that the EEOC cannot
issue early right to sue letters, as Plaintiff asserts, and citing the relevant Eastern District
authority with which it disagreed). Nevertheless, Defendant also cites no authority that seeking
an early letter is a mandatory prerequisite to seeking a stay. Sm Doc. 14 at 2-3. Plaintiff need
not seek unusual remedies such as early letters in order to meet the standard for a stay, especially
where she only seeks a stay for the one hundred eighty (180) day period. Because judicial
economy and the risk of severe prejudice to Plaintiff both clearly favor a stay, and because
Defendant will suffer minimal prejudice from a short delay, the Court GRANTS the instant
Motion to Stay.
' Plaintiff also indicated that she filed her case when she did because it is easier to meet the standard for two (2)
years of damages than the standard for (3) years of damages, and she wanted to file this suit within two (2) years of
the relevant conduct. Doc. 17 at 2
For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Stay, Doc. 4, and STAY
this case until March 5, 2018. The Court further ORDERS Plaintiff to file a status report
regarding the Right to Sue letter on March 5, 2018.
The Clerk is REQUESTED to send a copy of this Opinion & Order to all counsel of
It is so ORDERED.
Henry Coke Morgan. Jr.
Senior United Stales District Jud'26 /
HENRY COKE MORGAN, JR./ I ^
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
iJ t Oi
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?