Court filing
ORDER. Discovery is stayed pending further Order.… — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 64)
Summary
An order entered June 30, 2020 by United States District Judge T. Kent Wetherell, II in Sport & Wheat, CPA, PA v. ServisFirst Bank, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20cv5425-TKW-HTC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division. Responding to the parties' Rule 26(f) planning report (Doc. 61), the court notes the parties disagree on class treatment, discovery schedule and trial format. It defers the case management conference and stays discovery until it rules on motions to dismiss that raise an issue of statutory interpretation, citing an unserved defendant, a possible MDL proceeding and a discovery dispute (Doc. 52). The order directs any additional motions to dismiss to be filed as soon as practical and asks the parties to report material developments in the MDL or related cases.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
SPORT & WHEAT, CPA, PA,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:20cv5425-TKW-HTC
SERVISFIRST BANK, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER
This case is before the Court on the report of the parties’ Rule 26(f) planning
conference (Doc. 61). The report reflects that the parties agree that the case is not
likely to settle promptly but they disagree on nearly everything else—e.g., whether
this is a proper class action, what the discovery schedule should be, whether there
should be limits on the number of depositions, whether the case should be subject to
the Manual for Complex Litigation, when the case will be ready for trial, whether
the trial should be a bench or jury trial, etc.
Typically, after receiving a report like this, the Court would set a scheduling
conference to work through the issues raised by the parties and then enter a
scheduling order; however, because the pending (and forthcoming) motions to
dismiss raise what appears to be a fairly straightforward and potentially dispositive
issue of statutory interpretation that should be decided before this case goes any
further, the Court will defer the case management conference and stay further
discovery until after ruling on the motions to dismiss. The Court recognizes that
stays of discovery are not favored (and certainly not required), but the Court sees no
harm in imposing one here because one of the Defendants has yet to be served, this
case may soon be swept into an MDL proceeding, 1 and a discovery dispute (see Doc.
52) has already arisen between the parties. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that:
1. Discovery is stayed pending further Order.
2. Any additional motions to dismiss shall be filed as soon as practical.
3. The Court will set a case management conference after ruling on the
motions to dismiss, if necessary.
4. The parties shall promptly advise the Court of any material developments
in the MDL or rulings in the other related cases.
DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of June, 2020.
T. Kent Wetherell, II
T. KENT WETHERELL, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
The Court is aware that another judge recently denied a stay in a nearly identical case, see
James Quinn, Fahmia, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2020 WL 3472448 (S.D.N.Y. June
24, 2020); however, the defendant in that case sought to stay the entire case until the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation ruled on the MDL petition whereas the Court here is only staying
discovery and allowing motion practice to proceed.
2
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flnd.190491.64.0.pdf
- Size
- 173,743 bytes
- SHA-256
- 04e2b1374c54a8d5b596fd71e96d0354b610f6f94d8fe5f32129dafbfb1e4449
- Original
- No public link identified.