Paulino v. Dollar General Corporation et al

Filing 152

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR STAY granting in part 145 Motion to Stay. The Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants 145 motion for stay, and the Court ORDERS that proceedings are STAYED in this matter until the Court enters an Order resolving Defendants pending objections to Magistrate Judge Seiberts report and recommendation. At that time, the Court will order that the stay in this matter be lifted. Signed by District Judge Gina M. Groh on 4/1/2014. (cwm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG

STEPHANIE N. PAULINO, individually
and as Class Representative,

Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-75
(JUDGE GROH)

DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, a
foreign corporation, and DOLGENCORP,
LLC, a foreign corporation,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR STAY
The above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of Defendants’
Motion for Stay [Doc. 145] filed on March 13, 2014. Although Plaintiff’s counsel indicated
to Defendants that he is opposed to the motion for stay, Plaintiff did not file a response.
Defendants ask this Court to stay proceedings in this matter until after the Court has
resolved Defendants’ Objections to Magistrate Judge Seibert’s recommendation to grant
class certification and after any party’s potential appeal of the decision granting or denying
certification.
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 72.02 provides that “[w]hen an objection to a
magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive pretrial motion is filed pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a), the ruling remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the
magistrate judge or by a district judge.” A district court may enter an order staying

1

proceedings pursuant to its general equity powers. Williford v. Armstrong World Indus.,
Inc., 715 F.2d 124, 127 (4th Cir. 1983). However, the district court must “weigh competing
interests and maintain an even balance.” Id. The party requesting the stay “must justify
it by clear and convincing circumstances outweighing potential harm to the party against
whom it is operative.” Id.
In this case, Defendants request a stay of Magistrate Judge Seibert’s
recommendation to grant class certification until pending objections and any subsequent
appeal are resolved. However, the Court finds that a stay is appropriate, at this point, only
until this Court issues an Order resolving the pending objections to Magistrate Judge
Seibert’s report and recommendation.

First, Magistrate Judge Seibert’s report and

recommendation certifies a class of over 700 former employees of Dollar General.
Proceeding with this Court’s Scheduling Order would cause an undue hardship to both the
parties without knowing whether this Court will sustain or overrule Defendants’ objections.
Second, Plaintiff will not suffer a significant harm for a brief stay of the proceedings as the
Court anticipates it will take only a short period of time to resolve the pending objections.
Therefore, in weighing the competing interests, the Court finds that a stay of the
proceedings is proper until the Court enters an order resolving the pending objections to
Magistrate Judge Seibert’s report and recommendation. However, to clarify, the Court is
not entering a stay of the proceedings for any potential appeal as the request is premature
and the Court cannot weigh the competing interests and potential harms of the parties until
an appeal is filed.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ motion for stay, and the
Court ORDERS that proceedings are STAYED in this matter until the Court enters an Order
2

resolving Defendants’ pending objections to Magistrate Judge Seibert’s report and
recommendation. At that time, the Court will order that the stay in this matter be lifted.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record herein.
DATED: April 1, 2014

3