Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 07-869-BAJ-DLD No. 07-941 -BAJ-DLD
05-24-2012
ANNIE BARNETT ADAMS, CHANEL COSTA, GARRIN COSTA TAMISHA HARRIS MASON PATRICIA BONDS AND CARLACE BROOKS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SOUTHLAND TRACE, LLC. BURNS AND COMPANY, INC., LESLIE GLADNEY, BATON ROUGE TITLE COMPANY AND MARK W. SCHOEN -CONSOLIDATED WITH- JOSEPH RICHARDSON, ET AL v. SOUTHLAND TRACE, LLC, ET AL
RULING
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Stay, filed by defendants Baton Rouge Title Company and Mark W. Schoen (doc. 88). The motion is opposed (doc. 90).
Movants seek to stay this matter pending a ruling by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. First American Financial. As movants note, in ruling on a motion to stay, a court should consider "(1) hardship and inequity on the moving party without a stay, (2) prejudice the non-moving party will suffer if a stay is granted, and (3) judicial economy" (doc. 88-1, p. 4 (citing Morris v. Wyeth, 2011 WL 311009, *2 (W.D.La. 2011))).
As plaintiffs note, the Court relied, in part, on the Edwards case in an earlier ruling in which the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 79, p. 8 (quoting Edwards v. First American Corp., 610 F.3d 514, 518 (9th Cir. 2010))).
Defendants assert that the Court should stay these consolidated cases because the United States Supreme Court will, in the near future, issue a ruling in the Edwards case that could resolve the cases sub judice. Defendants argue that the short delay will not prejudice the plaintiffs.
The Court notes, however, that plaintiffs assert that they now have sufficient information to file an amended complaint which would cure the issue before the Supreme Court in the Edwards case should that ruling not be favorable to them. The Court also notes that these consolidated cases were filed in 2007 and that litigation is far from complete. Moreover, plaintiff's counsel has informed the Court that one of the plaintiffs is now suffering from severe health issues. In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that a stay would not be in the interests of judicial economy and that the balance of interests weighs against such a stay.
For all of the foregoing reasons the motion by defendants to stay is DENIED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, May 24, 2012
__________________
BRIAN A JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA