Bain et al v. Town of Hempstead et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER granting the defendants' 8 MOTION to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss; directing that discovery in this matter is stayed pending resolution of the defendants' 5 motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 1/5/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (taq)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON TANNER BAIN, by his father and natural guardian, DUSTIN BAIN, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 2:16-9281 TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD and TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD ANIMAL SHELTER, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Pending is a motion by defendants to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss, filed December 14, 2016. The plaintiff responded to the motion to stay on December 29, 2016, stating that he consents to the motion to stay so long as the stay only lasts until the court decides the pending motion to dismiss. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(c)(1), the court has the authority to stay discovery pending the outcome of a dispositive motion. See Thigpen v. United States, 800 F.2d 393, 396-397 (4th Cir. 1986). The court notes that the defendants’ motion to dismiss could be dispositive of the matter, as they contend that the case should be dismissed because the court lacks personal jurisdiction and venue over the defendants, or alternatively, that the case should be transferred to the Eastern District of New York in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses. There are no cross-claims or counterclaims and both defendants join in the motion to stay. The defendants argue that the stay will be short and thus will minimally burden plaintiff. Stay at 2. Memo. in Supp. of Mot. to Further, they contend that it is proper to resolve the jurisdictional issues before the parties engage in what may be unnecessary initial disclosures and a Rule 26(f) meeting. Id. As noted previously, plaintiff supports the motion, as long as it continues only until the pending motion to dismiss is decided by the court. Resp. to Mot. to Stay at 1. Having considered the applicable factors, the court finds that a stay is warranted. By first determining whether the court has jurisdiction over the defendants, the court can ensure that the parties do not participate in needless discovery. Moreover, the action is in its early stages, as the court has yet to enter a scheduling order and the parties’ Rule 26(f) report is not due to the court until January 13, 2017, all of which favors a stay. 2 01/28/2016 Motions under F.R. Civ. P. 12(b), together with supporting briefs, memoranda, affidavits, or other such matter in support thereof. (All motions unsupported by memoranda will be denied without prejudice pursuant to L.R. Civ. P. 7.1 (a)). Accordingly, the court 26(f) meeting. defendants’ 02/08/2016 Last day for Rule ORDERS that the 02/15/2016 motion to stay Last day to file Report of Parties= Planningto discovery pending resolution of the motion Meeting. See L.R. Civ. P. 16.1. dismiss, filed December 14, 2016, be, and it hereby is, granted. 02/22/2016 Scheduling conference at 4:30 p.m. at the Robert C. It is further ORDERED that States Courthouse in Charleston, before Byrd United discovery in this matter be, and it the undersigned, unless canceled. Lead counsel hereby is, stayed pending resolution of the defendants’ motion to directed to appear. 02/29/2016 dismiss. 03/08/2016 Entry of scheduling order. Last day to serve F.R. Civ. P 26(a)(1) disclosures. The Clerk is directed to transmit this order to all The Clerk is requested to transmit this Order and counsel to all counsel any record and to any unrepresented Notice of record and of unrepresented parties. parties. ENTER: January 5,5, 2016 DATED: January 2017 John T. Copenhaver, Jr. United States District Judge 3

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?