United States District Court, D. Colorado
LISA MILES a/k/a Elisa Marie Miles, and those similarly situated, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant,
v.
BKP INC., ELLA BLISS BEAUTY BAR LLC, ELLA BLISS BEAUTY BAR - 2, LLC, ELLA BLISS BEAUTY BAR - 3, LLC, BROOKE VANHAVERMAAT, KELLY HUELSING, and PETER KOCLANES, Defendants/Counter Claimants.
ORDER
PHILIP
A. BRIMMER, Chief United States District Judge.
This
matter is before the Court on plaintiff's Motion to Stay
Litigation Pending Decisions on Dispositive Motions in State
Court Proceeding Brought by Defendants Against
Plaintiff's Counsel [Docket No. 78] filed on September
25, 2019. On October 16, 2019, defendants responded [Docket
No. 79], and plaintiff replied on October 30, 2019. Docket
No. 80.
I.
BACKGROUND
On May
17, 2018, plaintiff Lisa Miles filed a class and collective
action against defendants alleging that defendants failed to
pay their employees for certain hours worked, such as time
spent cleaning the facilities and time spent working
overtime. Docket No. 1 at 2, ¶ 4. That same day,
plaintiff's counsel held a press conference outside an
Ella Bliss Beauty Bar location to discuss the lawsuit. Docket
No. 79 at 3, ¶ 3.[1] On May 17, 2019, defendants sued
plaintiff's counsel[2] in the District Court for the City and
County of Denver, raising claims of defamation and
intentional interference with contractual relations based on
statements made during the press conference. Id. at
4, ¶ 12. Plaintiff's counsel filed two motions to
dismiss and one motion for summary judgment in the state
court case. Id., ¶ 13; see also Docket
Nos. 78-1, 78-2, and 78-3.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
It is
well-established that a 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). However, the Tenth Circuit has cautioned that
“the right to proceed in court should not be denied
except under the most extreme circumstances.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Chilcott
Portfolio Mgmt., Inc., 713 F.2d 1477, 1484 (10th Cir.
1983). Stays of all proceedings in a case are thus
“generally disfavored in this District” and are
considered to be “the exception rather than the
rule.” Davidson v. Bank of Am. N.A., No.
14-cv-01578-CMA-KMT, 2015 WL 5444308, at *1 (D. Colo. Sept.
16, 2015). A stay may, however, be appropriate in certain
circumstances. In determining whether to grant or deny a stay
of discovery, courts in this district consider the following
factors (the “String Cheese Incident
factors”): “(1) plaintiff's interests in
proceeding expeditiously with the civil action and the
potential prejudice to plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden
on the defendants; (3) the convenience to the court; (4) the
interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and
(5) the public interest.” String Cheese Incident,
LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 02-cv-01934-LTB-PA, 2006
WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006).
III.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff
argues that a stay is warranted under the String Cheese
Incident factors because (1) there is a strong public
interest in deterring frivolous lawsuits against opposing
counsel; (2) both parties would benefit from assurance that
their actions taken in discovery in this case do not affect
the collateral claims; (3) a stay would promote judicial
efficiency because the state court motions could effectively
adjudicate some issues in this case; (4) a stay would not
prejudice interested, putative-class-member non-parties
because their claims were tolled by plaintiff's class
action complaint. Docket No. 78 at 3-6.
The
Court finds that a stay is not warranted here. Plaintiff
argues that “[t]he public has an interest in
disincentivizing . . . collateral litigation . . .
inappropriately used to gain a litigation advantage.”
Id. at 3. Plaintiff contends that, if her
“counsel is not given this opportunity [to ‘fend
off the state court litigation with their dispositive
motions'] and is instead forced to consider continuing to
the class phase in a hobbled state or potentially
withdrawing, it would only encourage similar tactics by
litigants in the future.” Id. at 3-4. The
Court is not convinced by plaintiff's argument. First,
plaintiff has not explained why counsel may be forced to
withdraw if, as she claims, the state court litigation is
tactical and frivolous, and has not explained how the state
court proceedings would “hobble” the class
action. See Id. Plaintiff has therefore failed to
show that issuing a stay of the proceedings in this case
would benefit the public interest.
Instead,
“the public has an interest in the speedy resolution of
legal disputes.” Prison Legal News v. Fed. Bureau
of Prisons, No. 15-cv-02184-RM-STV, 2017 WL 10619942, at
*13 (D. Colo. Feb. 23, 2017) (citing Genetic Techs. Ltd.
v. Agilent Techs., Inc., No. 11-cv-01389-WJM-KLM, 2011
WL 5024839, at *8 (D. Colo. Oct. 20, 2011)). This case has
been pending for eighteen months and is still within the
discovery stage. A stay would work only to further delay the
completion of discovery, the progression of the case, and the
eventual resolution of this dispute. The Court finds that the
public interest factor weighs against a stay.
Next,
plaintiff argues that both parties' interests would
benefit from a stay of this matter. Docket No. 78 at 4. In
particular, plaintiff contends that, because discovery in
this federal case could have an impact on the state court
action, conflicts could arise that may negatively affect the
federal case discovery. Id. For example, according
to plaintiff, defendant “is refusing to allow a
comprehensive [Rule] 30(b)(6) deposition in this case based
on the odd objection that it would be cumulative and
duplicative of other discovery.” Id. “In
opposing the [Rule] 30(b)(6) [request] on such grounds,
[defendant's] ulterior motive may be to freeze the
factual record in this case while they attempt to fend [off]
Plaintiff's counsel's motions in state court.”
Id.
Defendants
counter that their objection to the Rule 30(b)(6) notice was
proper and that, should plaintiff disagree with
defendants' objection, she can raise such discovery
dispute with the magistrate judge. Docket No. 79 at 9. The
Court agrees. In her reply, plaintiff makes a merits
challenge to defendants' objection to her Rule 30(b)(6)
request. See Docket No. 80 at 5. But the Court will
not consider the merits of the parties' purported
discovery dispute, as the proper method for addressing such
dispute is through a request for a discovery conference with
the magistrate judge. See Practice Standards - Civil
Actions, Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge
III.C (“Before filing a motion for an order relating to
a discovery dispute, the movant must request a conference
with the Court.”). Further, plaintiff's speculation
that defendants' discovery objection “may” be
rooted in an ulterior motive does not support a finding that
the parties' interest in conducting complete discovery
would benefit from a stay.
Moreover,
plaintiff's argument goes exclusively toward her own
interests, not defendants' interests. Defendants argue
that their interests would be harmed by a stay, as class and
collective actions “are inherently disruptive to
business operations and the workforce” and, for this
reason, their interest is in a quick resolution of this case.
Docket No. 79 at 10. The Court agrees that a speedy
resolution would benefit all involved. Thus, the Court finds
that the parties' interests weigh against issuing a stay.
Plaintiff
next contends that a stay would serve the interests of the
Court. Docket No. 78 at 5. According to plaintiff, the Court
would benefit from “the efficiency of the proposed stay
because the dispositive motions in state court have the
potential to effectively adjudicate issues in this case
through the doctrines of judicial and collateral
estoppel.” Id. For example, plaintiff argues
that, should counsel be successful in their summary judgment
motion asserting a defense of truthfulness to the defamation
claim, the issue of whether defendants fail to pay their
employees for certain hours worked would be adjudicated in
both cases. Id. While it is possible that resolution
of the state court action in ...