United States District Court, D. Colorado
TERRELL FREDERICK, an individual, on his own behalf, and on behalf of LF, his minor child Plaintiff,
COL-TERRA INVESTMENTS XIV, Defendant.
T. VARHOLAK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Stay
Discovery and Vacate April 28, 2017 Scheduling Conference
[#19] (the “Motion to Stay”), which has been
referred to this Court [#21]. The Motion to Stay was filed on
April 12, 2017. [#19] Plaintiff's Response was due on May
3, 2017, see D.C.Colo.LCivR 7.1(d), yet Plaintiff
has not filed a Response. This Court has carefully considered
the Motion to Stay, the entire case file and the applicable
case law, and has determined that oral argument would not
materially assist in the disposition of the instant Motion to
Stay. For the following reasons, I GRANT the Motion to Stay.
Complaint alleges a violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2012)
(“ADA”). [#1] In particular, Plaintiff's
Complaint alleges that Defendant violated the ADA by failing
to provide accessible parking space identification signs
sixty inches above the finish floor or ground surface as
required by regulations implementing the ADA. [Id.
at ¶ 38] On April 10, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to
Dismiss arguing that Defendant's raising of the parking
signs has mooted the issue, thereby depriving this Court of
subject matter jurisdiction. [#17] The Motion to Stay seeks to
stay discovery pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss.
considering whether to grant a stay, the Court considers the
following factors: (1) the interest of the plaintiff in
proceeding expeditiously with discovery and the potential
prejudice to the plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the
defendant of proceeding with discovery; (3) the convenience
to the Court of staying discovery; (4) the interests of
nonparties in either staying or proceeding with discovery;
and (5) the public interest in either staying or proceeding
with discovery. See String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus
Shows, Inc., No. 1:02-CV-01934-LTB-PA, 2006 WL 894955,
at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006). Considering these factors,
the Court concludes that a stay is warranted pending
resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss.
although Plaintiff has an interest in proceeding
expeditiously, Plaintiff has failed to identify any specific
prejudice that would befall Plaintiff as a result of any such
delay. Indeed, Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion to
Stay. Because Plaintiff has failed to provide any
“specific examples of how [his] ability to conduct
discovery might be adversely affected by a stay, ” the
Court finds that Plaintiff's general interest in
proceeding expeditiously does not overcome other factors
discussed below that weigh in favor of a stay. Stone v.
Vail Resorts Dev. Co., No. 09-cv-02081-WYD-KLM, 2010 WL
148278, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 7, 2010).
the Court finds that proceeding with discovery would impose a
burden upon Defendant. A ruling in favor of Defendant on the
Motion to Dismiss would be dispositive. Thus, staying
discovery may relieve the burdens of discovery for Defendant.
Accordingly, the second factor supports granting the Motion
the Court considers its own convenience. The Court recognizes
the general policy in the District of Colorado disfavoring a
complete stay of discovery, “as the resulting delay
makes the Court's docket less predictable and, hence,
less manageable.” Stone, 2010 WL 148278, at
*3. However, courts have acknowledged that “[w]here a
pending motion may dispose of an action . . . a stay of
proceedings may allow the Court to avoid expending resources
in managing an action that ultimately will be
dismissed.” Id. Here, if successful, the
Motion to Dismiss would entirely dispose of the instant
action. Given that this proceeding is at the very early
stages, the Court finds that the interests of judicial
economy weigh in favor of granting the stay.
fourth and fifth factors do not overcome the factors that
support granting a stay. Neither party has identified any
nonparty whose interests would be impacted by the requested
stay. Moreover, while the public has an interest in the
speedy resolution of legal disputes, see,
e.g., Waisanen v. Terracon Consultants,
Inc., No. 09-cv-01104-MSK-KMT, 2009 WL 5184699, at *2
(D. Colo. Dec. 22, 2009), under the specific circumstances of
this case, the Court finds that resolution of the Motion to
Dismiss will conserve judicial resources and further the
public's interest in judicial economy.
the factors set forth above, the Court determines that a stay
of discovery pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss is
warranted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion to Stay
[#19] is GRANTED. Discovery shall be stayed pending
resolution of the Motion to Dismiss. A status conference is set
for July 10, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. Counsel may appear
telephonically at that status conference by initiating a
telephone call among all individuals participating by phone
and calling the Court (303.335.2365) at the scheduled time.
 Plaintiff has filed an Amended
Complaint [#20] that Plaintiff claims moots the Motion to
Dismiss. [#27] The Amended Complaint contains an additional
alleged ADA violation. [#20] Neither the Motion to Dismiss
nor the Motion for Clarification or Extension of Time to
Respond to Defendants Motion to Dismiss ...