Rowe et al v. Aurora Commercial Corp. et al

Filing 82

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting Defendant's 71 MOTION to Stay Discovery pending resolution of its 59 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 4/17/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (cds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
JAMES J. ROWE and
SHARON H. ROWE,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 5:13-21369

CITIBANK N.A. as the Trustee
for LEHAM XS MORTGAGE PASS-THRU
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005–06,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is defendant’s motion to stay
discovery pending resolution of its motion for judgment on the
pleadings. (Doc. No. 71).

For reasons more fully explained

below, the motion is GRANTED.
I.

Factual and Procedural Background

This dispute arises out of a 2005 mortgage loan that
plaintiffs secured to finance the purchase of a home in South
Carolina.

As is the case with most home purchases, plaintiffs

and their lender signed a number of documents to complete the
transaction. 1

Included in these signed documents were two

separate adjustable-rate notes:

“Note I,” which provided for an

interest rate floor of 2.25%, and “Note II,” which provided for
1

The original holder of plaintiffs’ mortgage was TM Capital. In
the years following, defendant purchased the mortgage with its
attendant rights and obligations.
1

an interest rate floor of 6.625%.

Plaintiffs argue that Note I

is the operative document and that defendant overcharged their
interest rate for a number of years.

Conversely, defendant

contends that Note II controls and that it has properly
calculated and charged plaintiffs’ interest rate.

And in

support of their position, defendant filed a motion for judgment
on the pleadings, arguing that the mortgage documents signed by
the parties demonstrate that plaintiffs do not have a legal
claim.

(Doc. No. 59).

On March 4, 2015, defendant filed the instant motion,
arguing for a brief stay of discovery pending the court’s ruling
on its motion for judgment on the pleadings.

(Doc. No. 71).

Defendant argues that the court’s ruling may dispose of all of
plaintiffs’ claims and a brief stay of discovery will avoid an
unnecessary waste of resources, but will not prejudice
plaintiffs.

(Doc. No. 71).

Plaintiffs oppose defendant’s

motion, arguing that they will be prejudiced by a stay of
discovery and that compliance with the current discovery
deadlines will not burden defendant.
II.

(Doc. No. 74).

Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) vests the court with
discretion to stay discovery pending resolution of a dispositive
motion.

See Thigpen v. United States, 800 F.2d 393, 396–97 (4th

Cir. 1986) (“Nor did the court err by granting the government’s
2

motion to stay discovery pending disposition of the 12(b)(1)
motion.”); see also Sheehan v. United States, Civil Action No.
5:11CV170, 2012 WL 1142709, at *1 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 4, 2012) (“It
is well-settled that ‘[a] protective order under Rule 26(c) to
stay discovery pending determination of a dispositive motion is
an appropriate exercise of the court’s discretion.’”) (quoting
Tilley v. United States, 270 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (M.D.N.C.
2003)).

Such a stay allows the court “to prevent wasting the

time and effort of all concerned, and to make the most efficient
use of judicial resources.”

United States v. Daily Gazette Co.

et al., Civil Action No. 2:07-0329, 2007 WL 7575700, at *2
(S.D.W. Va. Oct. 18, 2007) (internal citation and quotation
marks omitted).
Courts can consider a number of factors to determine
whether a stay of discovery is appropriate.
In considering whether a stay of all discovery pending
the outcome of a dispositive motion is warranted, a
case-by-case analysis is required, since such an
inquiry is necessarily fact-specific and depends on
the particular circumstances and posture of each case.
To assist in this determination, the Court is guided
by the following factors, none of which is singly
dispositive: the type of motion and whether it is a
challenge as a “matter of law” or to the “sufficiency”
of the allegations; the nature and complexity of the
action; whether counterclaims and/or cross-claims have
been interposed; whether some or all of the defendants
join in the request for a stay; the posture or stage
of the litigation; the expected extent of discovery in
light of the number of parties and complexity of the
issues in the case; and any other relevant
circumstances.
3

Id. (quoting Hatchette Distribution, Inc. v. Hudson Cnty. News
Co., Inc., 136 F.R.D. 356, 358 (E.D.N.Y. 1991)).
Having examined these factors, the court concludes that a
stay of discovery pending resolution of defendant’s potentially
dispositive motion is appropriate.

While defendant’s motion for

judgment on the pleadings tests the sufficiency of plaintiffs’
claims, a finding in defendant’s favor could completely resolve
the case without any need for discovery.

Furthermore, defendant

represents that it would incur “very real and substantial”
litigation expenses associated with responding to plaintiffs’
current discovery requests, as plaintiffs have requested
financial information and documentation dating back to 2005.
(Doc. No. 72 at 5).

This extensive request for documents and

information favors a brief stay of discovery.

Finally, there

are no other defendants in this case, nor counterclaims or
cross-claims interposed, which also favors a discovery stay.
While plaintiffs argue that they will be prejudiced from a
discovery stay, the court does not agree.

The current stage of

litigation is still fairly early and discovery does not close
until September 23, 2015.

(Doc. No. 69).

As a result, the

court cannot conclude that a brief stay of discovery will
prevent a speedy determination of this action, which is not set
for trial until February 9, 2016.
4

Therefore, having considered

these factors, the court finds that a stay of discovery pending
resolution of defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings
is appropriate.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant’s motion to stay
discovery pending resolution of its motion for judgment on the
pleadings, (Doc. No. 71), is GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED

that discovery in this matter be stayed pending resolution of
defendant’s motion.

(Doc. No. 59).

The Clerk is DIRECTED to

send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to all counsel
of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of April, 2015.
Enter:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

5