Opinion
CV423-337
05-07-2024
DEMETRA GARVIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EFFINGHAM COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
CHRISTOPHER L. RAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Defendants move to stay proceedings in this case pending resolution of their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, doc. 13. Doc. 14. Plaintiffs did not file a response within the 14-day window to respond. See generally docket; see S.D. Ga. L. Civ. R. 7.5 (providing that parties have 14 days to serve and file a response). The Court therefore treats Defendants' motion to stay as unopposed.
The power to stay a case 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 litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). At this stage, the parties have yet to conduct discovery. See doc. 14 at 2 (indicating that Plaintiff has not served discovery requests or initiated the Rule 26(f) Conference). When “deciding whether to stay discovery pending resolution of a pending motion, the Court inevitably must balance the harm produced by a delay in discovery against the possibility that the motion will be granted and entirely eliminate the need for discovery.” SP Frederica, LLC v. Glynn Cnty., 2015 WL 5242830, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 8, 2015) (internal quotations omitted). In evaluating stays of discovery pending resolutions of dispositive motions, the Court must take a “preliminary peek” at the dispositive motion and assess the likelihood that the motion will be granted. Sams v. GA W. Gate, LLC, 2016 WL 3339764, at *6 (S.D. Ga. June 10, 2016) (internal quotations omitted). “[A] stay should be granted only where the motion to dismiss appears, upon preliminary review, to be clearly meritorious and truly case dispositive.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted).
Defendants argue that their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings “may dispose of the entire case against both Defendants” and “submit that participation in written discovery, depositions, expert proceedings and other pre-trial matters during the pendency of the dispositive motion would be premature and a potentially unnecessary expenditure of the parties' time and resources.” Doc. 14 at 1. Upon a preliminary review, Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings does not appear meritless. See Arriaga-Zacarias v. Lewis Taylor Farms, Inc., 2008 WL 4544470, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 10, 2008) (granting a stay of discovery deadlines when a motion to dismiss was not “meritless on its face”). It would also be case dispositive if granted. See generally doc. 13. Plaintiffs did not oppose the stay or indicate that they would be prejudiced by a stay. See generally docket. On balance, then, a stay is appropriate.
However, Plaintiffs filed notices of voluntary dismissal on May 2, 2024. See docs. 15-17. Under Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff cannot voluntarily dismiss a case without a Court Order unless the voluntary dismissal is filed before the opposing party serves an answer or motion for judgment or all parties sign a stipulation of dismissal. Id. Defendants filed their Answer more than three months ago, see doc. 8, and did not sign a stipulation of dismissal, see docs. 15-17. Therefore, Plaintiffs cannot voluntarily dismiss this case without a Court Order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1). Defendants have until May 16, 2024 to respond to Plaintiffs' request for a Court Order granting dismissal. See S.D. Ga. L. Civ. R. 7.5.
In light of Plaintiffs' pending request for a Court Order granting dismissal, Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings During Pendency of Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED except as to any deadlines or proceedings related to Plaintiffs' request for dismissal. Doc. 14.
SO ORDERED