RODEMAKER v. CITY OF VALDOSTA BOARD OF EDUCATION

• Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
• Decided: October 8, 2024
• Docket: 7:21-cv-00020
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

LEAH RODEMAKER, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 7:21-CV-20 (WLS) : CITY OF VALDOSTA BD. OF EDUC., : or, in the alternative, VALDOSTA CITY : SCH. DIST., WARREN LEE, LIZ : SCHUMPHARD, TYRA HOWARD, : DEBRA BELL, and KELISA BROWN, : : Defendants. : : : ORDER Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand (Doc. 11) (“the Motion”). The Court has conducted a preliminary review of the Motion and briefing. The Court finds that supplemental briefing is necessary. On September 3, 2021, the late Honorable Hugh Lawson entered an order staying the above-captioned case pending the resolution of a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment in a companion lawsuit filed by Plaintiff’s husband, Alan Rodemaker. (Doc. 21); (see Rodemaker v. City of Valdosta Bd. of Educ., et al., No. 7:21-CV-76). Judge Lawson granted those motions, and Mr. Rodemaker filed a notice of appeal. (See Doc. 22 at 2). On October 26, 2022, the Court entered an order continuing the stay of this case pending the outcome of Mr. Rodemaker’s appeal. (Doc. 27). On August 5, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Court’s order granting the Valdosta Board of Education’s motion for summary judgment. Rodemaker v. City of Valdosta Bd. of Educ., 110 F.4th 1318 (11th Cir. 2024). The Circuit Court held that Mr. Rodemaker’s Title VII claims were barred by res judicata due to an earlier lawsuit wherein Mr. Rodemaker alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. Id. at 1331. The Court requires Plaintiff to supplement the Motion to Remand stating her position regarding how the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Case No. 7:21-CV-76 impacts the arguments for remand asserted. Specifically, Plaintiff’s supplement should address whether and to what extent her claim for loss of consortium is impacted by the Circuit’s holding that Mr. Rodemaker’s Title VII claim is barred by res judicata. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to submit a supplemental brief, addressing the issues described above no later than Wednesday, October 30, 2024. Defendants are ORDERED to submit a supplemental brief, addressing the issues described above no later than fourteen (14) days after Plaintiff has submitted her supplemental brief. Such briefing shall be limited to twelve (12) pages as to each party. No additional briefing is authorized unless expressly authorized by separate Court order or notice. Furthermore, the Court finds good cause to continue the stay of this matter. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case shall remain stayed pending the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 11). See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.”); see also Jones v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 08-CV-152, 2013 WL 565770, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 15, 2013) (noting that stays pending a motion to dismiss are generally disfavored unless the court’s resolution of the motion will dispose of the case or narrow the issues). SO ORDERED, this 8th day of October 2024. /s/ W. Louis Sands W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT