Torres v. Starbucks Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedMarch 4, 2025
Docket8:20-cv-01311
StatusUnknown

This text of Torres v. Starbucks Corporation (Torres v. Starbucks Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Torres v. Starbucks Corporation, (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

RAPHYR LUBIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:20-cv-1311-CEH-TGW

STARBUCKS CORPORATION,

Defendant. ___________________________________/ ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon the Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Completion of Virtual Mediation. Doc. 62. The Parties ask that the Court stay all proceedings and deadlines for ninety days to allow them time to conduct an early mediation. Additionally, they ask permission to conduct mediation virtually based on the locations of their representatives and counsel. The Court, having considered the motion and being fully advised in the premises, will grant the Motion. Trial courts have “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). Further, “district courts have inherent, discretionary authority to issue stays in many circumstances, and granting a stay to permit mediation (or to require it) will often be appropriate.” Advanced Bodycare Sols., LLC v. Thione Int'l, Inc., 524 F.3d 1235, 1241 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted) First, the Parties request permission to mediate virtually and argue that the interests of yustice would be served by making mediation more convenient. Doc. 62 at 2. According to Middle District of Florida Local Rule 4.03, mediation is to be in- person “unless otherwise agreed by the parties.” M.D. Fla. L.R. 4.03. Here, the parties agree to virtual mediation—and the Court will thus grant their request. In its discretion, the Court will also grant the Parties’ request for a ninety-day stay of proceedings so that they can conduct an early mediation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. The Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Completion of Virtual Mediation (Doc. 62) is GRANTED. 2. This case is STAYED for a period of 90 days. The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines and administratively close the file. Any party may move to lift the stay and reopen this case at any time. 3. No later than five days following the completion of their mediation, the Parties shall file a mediation report advising the Court as to its outcome. DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on March 4, 2025.

□□□ lene Ldwarda Mp TDs gl ell Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge

Copies to: Counsel of Record and Unrepresented Parties, if any

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Clinton v. Jones
520 U.S. 681 (Supreme Court, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Torres v. Starbucks Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-starbucks-corporation-flmd-2025.