ANDROS v. TINSLEY

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION

JOHN ANDROS, , : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : CASE NO: 7:23-cv-135 (WLS) :

: STEPHEN TINSLEY, , :

: Defendants. : ___________________________________ ORDER Before the Court are Defendant National Insurance Crime Bureau’s (“NICB”) Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 83), Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 87), and Motion for Sanctions and to Strike Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert Gary Vowell (Doc. 112) (together the “Motions”). A hearing on the Motions is scheduled for Tuesday, May 20, 2025. In addition to the Motions, on April 30, 2025, NICB filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 114). As the parties are aware, Defendants April Tinsley and Stephen Tinsley (together the “Tinsley Defendants”) filed an interlocutory appeal of the Court’s Order (Doc. 103) denying in part the Tinsley Defendants’ motions to dismiss, and in particular the Court’s finding that the Tinsley Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. With respect to the Court’s jurisdiction of a case pending appeal, the Eleventh Circuit has stated: The filing of a proper notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance— it confers jurisdiction on the appellate court and divests the trial court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S. Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982). In re Walker, 515 F.3d 1204, 1211 (11th Cir. 2008) (emphasis added). Based on the foregoing, prior to holding the May 20, 2025 hearing or resolving any of the pending Motions or the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court finds that it is appropriate to inquire of all parties as to whether they believe such matters are stayed by the Tinsley Defendants’ interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, on or before close of business on Friday, May 16, 2025, all parties shall file a response to this Order advising the Court of their position as to the effect of the interlocutory appeal on all matters currently pending before this Court. Upon review, the Court considers the aforementioned Motions and the parties thereto are not stayed by the pending appeal. If all parties agree, the previously scheduled hearing will go forward. If a party or parties show, with appropriate citations, that the matters should be stayed, the Court will suspend the May 20, 2025 hearing and consider the matter further before holding a hearing as presently scheduled.

SO ORDERED, this 14th day of May 2025.

/s/W. Louis Sands W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT