Yates v. City of Bloomingdale

• Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
• Decided: August 15, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-00141
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

STON YATES, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CV425-141 ) CITY OF BLOOMIGNDALE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on June 16, 2025. Doc. 1. Defendants responded by filing a Motion to Dismiss, doc. 6, and subsequently filed a Motion to Stay pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss, doc. 7. Plaintiffs have responded in opposition to the Motion to Stay, doc. 11, and the Motion is now ripe for review.1 A court has “broad discretion” in determining whether to grant a stay of discovery. Rivas v. The Bank of New York Mellon, 676 F. App’x 926, 932 (11th Cir. 2017). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that it is appropriate for the Court dispose of “[f]acial challenges to the legal

1 Plaintiffs have also filed an untimely Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 12. sufficiency of a claim or defense, such as a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim for relief,” before the parties engage in costly and

potentially unnecessary discovery. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367-68 (11th Cir. 1997). When “deciding whether to stay discovery pending resolution of a

pending motion, the Court inevitably must balance the harm produced by a delay in discovery against the possibility that the motion will be

granted and entirely eliminate the need for such discovery.” SP Frederica, LLC v. Glynn Cnty., 2015 WL 5242830, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 8, 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Feldman v. Flood,

176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997)). In evaluating stays of discovery pending resolution of dispositive motions, “a court must take a ‘preliminary peek’ . . . to assess the likelihood that the motion will be

granted.” Taylor v. Jackson, 2017 WL 71654, at *1 n.2 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 6, 2017) (quoting Sams v. GA West Gate, LLC, 2016 WL 3339764, at *6 (S.D. Ga. June 10, 2016)). “[A] stay should be granted only where the motion

to dismiss appears, upon preliminary review, to be clearly meritorious and truly case dispositive.” Sams, 2016 WL 3339764 at *6. “[A] request to stay discovery pending a resolution of a motion is rarely appropriate unless resolution of the motion will dispose of the entire case.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. United States, 2014 WL 11429178, at *1 (S.D. Ga. May

30, 2014) (citing Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652). As Defendants point out, see doc. 7 at 1-3, the Motion to Dismiss, if granted, would dispose of all pending claims. Further, upon a

preliminary review, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss does not appear meritless. See Arriaga-Zacarias v. Lewis Taylor Farms, Inc., 2008 WL

4544470, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 10, 2008) (granting a stay of discovery deadlines when a motion to dismiss was not “meritless on its face”). Plaintiffs object to the imposition of a stay because they believe that it is

unlikely that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be granted in its entirety. Doc. 11 at 2. While the ultimate disposition of the Motion to Dismiss rests with Chief Judge Baker, in the absence of a more robust

argument from Plaintiff, the Court finds that a stay is appropriate. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Stay. Doc. 7. All discovery and discovery-related deadlines are STAYED until the District Judge’s

disposition of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, doc. 6. If any claims remain pending, and unless otherwise instructed by the District Judge, the parties are DIRECTED to confer and submit a Rule 26(f) Report within fourteen days of the District Judge’s Order on the Motion to Dismiss. SO ORDERED, this 15th day of August, 2025.

CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA