Lacroix v. Lejeune Auto Wholesale, Inc.

• Decision Date: 14 October 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 20-21469-Civ-WILLIAMS/TORRES
• Parties: GARVENS LACROIX, Plaintiff, v. LEJEUNE AUTO WHOLESALE, INC., and OVERALL RECOVERY, INC., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

GARVENS LACROIX, Plaintiff, v. LEJEUNE AUTO WHOLESALE, INC.,and OVERALL RECOVERY, INC., Defendants.

Case No. 20-21469-Civ-WILLIAMS/TORRES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

October 14, 2020

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

This matter is before the Court on Lejeune Auto Wholesale, Inc.'s ("Lejeune" or "Defendant") motion to stay discovery pending final disposition of the motion to dismiss Garvens Lacroix's ("Plaintiff") amended complaint. [D.E. 22]. Plaintiff responded to Defendant's motion on September 2, 2020 [D.E. 26] to which Defendant replied on September 6, 2020. [D.E. 27]. Therefore, Defendant's motion is now ripe for disposition. After careful consideration of the motion, response, reply, relevant authority, and for the reasons discussed below, Defendant's motion to stay discovery is GRANTED pending final disposition of the motion to dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action on April 6, 2020 against Lejeune and Overall Recovery, Inc. ("Overall Recovery") pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 559.55 et seq., and the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC"), Fla. Stat. § 679.1011 et seq. [D.E. 1]. Plaintiff alleges that, on August 23, 2019, he purchased from Lejeune a 2016 Dodge Charger on credit. In connection with this transaction, the parties entered into a retail sales contract where Plaintiff used the vehicle for his personal use and, in return, Lejeune obtained a security interest.

On September 18, 2019, Plaintiff was sitting in his car when suddenly Overall Recovery arrived to repossess the vehicle. Overall Recovery crashed its tow truck into the Dodge Charger and lifted it into the air despite Plaintiff's loud protests in opposition. Overall Recovery and Plaintiff then argued for approximately one hour. During this time, Plaintiff called Lejeune in an attempt to pay the outstanding balance due on the vehicle. Although Lejeune agreed to accept payment, Overall Recovery advised that they would continue with the repossession because they were owed a collection fee. Two police officers then arrived on the scene and advised Overall Recovery that it needed to cease the repossession because Plaintiff remained in the vehicle. Plaintiff claims that the officers left the scene, but that Overall Recovery continued with the repossession in defiance of the officers' instructions. Subsequently, an Overall Recovery employee threated Plaintiff to turn over the keys to the vehicle so that the repossession could continueand Plaintiff reluctantly did so out of fear for his well-being. Lejeune later sold the vehicle and, as a result, Plaintiff seeks damages, fees, costs, and interest.

II. APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES AND LAW

The Court "has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket." Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) ("[T]he 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 litigants."); Chrysler Int'l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002) ("At the outset, we stress the broad discretion district courts have in managing their cases."); Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Georgia, 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001) ("[W]e accord district courts broad discretion over the management of pre-trial activities, including discovery and scheduling."). Additionally, "[m]atters pertaining to discovery are committed to the sound discretion of the district court." Patterson v. United States Postal Serv., 901 F.2d 927, 929 (11th Cir. 1990).

To prevail on a motion to stay, Defendant must demonstrate reasonableness and good cause. "While overall stays of discovery may be rarely granted, courts have held good cause to stay discovery exists wherein 'resolution of a preliminary motion may dispose of the entire action."' Nankivil v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 216 F.R.D. 689, 692 (M.D. Fla.), aff'd, 87 F. App'x 713 (11th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added) (quoting Association Fe Y Allegria v. Republic of Ecuador, 1999 WL 147716 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 1999)); see also Patterson, 901 F.2d at 927 (holding district courtdid not abuse its discretion by staying discovery where pending dispositive motions gave court enough information to ascertain further discovery not likely to produce a genuine issue of material fact); Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (holding stay of discovery not appropriate unless pending dispositive motion would dispose of entire action); Spencer Trask Software and Information Services, LLC v. Rpost International Limited, 206 F.R.D. 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (holding good cause for discovery stay exists where dispositive motion has been filed and stay is for short time period that does not prejudice opposing party); Simpson v. Specialty Retail Concepts, Inc., 121 F.R.D. 261 (M.D.N.C. 1988) (setting up balancing test for stays of discovery).

In the absence of a dispositive motion, courts have also granted motions to stay in the consideration of the following four factors: "(1) whether the litigation is at an early stage; (2) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or tactically disadvantage the non-moving party; (3) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and streamline the trial; and (4) whether a stay will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court." Grice Eng'g, Inc. v. JG Innovations, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 2d 915, 920 (W.D. Wis. 2010) (citing Tap Pharmaceautical Products, Inc. v. Atrix Laboratories, Inc., 2004 WL 422697, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2004); Baxter International, Inc. v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., 2008 WL 4395854, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 25, 2008)). One additional circumstance that has occasionally satisfied the aforementioned factors is the possibility of avoiding unnecessary expenses while the parties engage in mediation or settlement discussions thatmight conserve the parties' resources and promote judicial economy. See, e.g., ArrivalStar, S.A. v. Blue Sky Network, LLC, 2012 WL 588806, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2012) ("The Court concludes that Blue Sky has shown good cause to justify a stay of discovery pending mediation. The Court finds that staying discovery pending mediation will conserve the resources of the parties and will not impose an inequity on any party."); see also Advanced Bodycare Sols., LLC v. Thione Int'l, Inc., 524 F.3d 1235, 1241 (11th Cir. 2008) ("[D]istrict courts have inherent, discretionary authority to issue stays in many circumstances and granting a stay to permit mediation (or to require it) will often be appropriate.").

"In evaluating whether the moving party has met its burden, a court 'must balance the harm produced by a delay in discovery against the possibility that the [dispositive] motion will be granted and entirely eliminate the need for such discovery.'" Bocciolone v. Solowsky, 2008 WL 2906719, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 24, 2008) (emphasis added) (quoting McCabe v. Foley, 233 F.R.D. 683, 685 (M.D. Fla. 2006)). Thus, courts generally take a "preliminary peek at the merits of [the] dispositive motion to see if it appears to be clearly meritorious and truly case dispositive." Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652-53.

III. ANALYSIS

Lejeune seeks a stay of discovery pending final disposition of the pending motion to dismiss because, when the parties entered into a sales contract, it contained an express provision that allowed either party to resolve any dispute with binding arbitration. Lejeune has chosen to proceed with arbitration and claims thatany further litigation in this forum will be a waste of both time and resources because this case does not belong in federal court. Lejeune also claims that the pending motion to dismiss will resolve the entire action because, in addition to binding arbitration, Plaintiff has failed to comply with other perquisites prior to filing this action. And even worse, Lejeune contends that Plaintiff's amended complaint fails to state a claim. Because this case will soon be compelled to binding arbitration, Lejeune concludes that discovery should be stayed pending final disposition of the pending motion to dismiss.

In determining whether a discovery stay should be imposed, there is a "clear congressional purpose that the arbitration procedure" should "be speedy and not subject to delay and obstruction in the courts," and that when considering a motion to stay pursuant to the FAA, "a federal court may consider only issues relating to the making and performance of the agreement to arbitrate." Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 404 (1967). If this case is arbitrable, that means the "responsibility for discovery lies with the arbitrators," not a federal court. See CIGNA HealthCare of St. Louis, Inc. v. Kaiser, 294 F.3d 849, 855 (7th Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted); see also 9 U.S.C. § 7. "Based upon these principles, courts have routinely stayed discovery into the underlying merits of the case when a motion to compel arbitration has been filed in good faith." Morat v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 2008 WL 11336388, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2008) (citing Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Coors, 357 F. Supp. 2d 1277, 1280 (D. Colo. 2004) (finding that the defendant's motion to dismiss [and compel arbitration]was not filed for any improper purpose and temporarily staying discovery pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss); In re Managed Care Litig., 2001 WL 6634391, at * 3 (S.D. Fla. June 12, 2001) (recognizing the complexity of the issues involved in the litigation and staying discovery for a limited period of time for the court to rule on the motions to dismiss and to compel arbitration); Coneff v. AT&T Corp., 2007 WL 738612, at * 2 (W.D. Wash. 2007) (granting a protective...