Opinion
Case No. 8:10-cv-521-T-33TBM.
June 23, 2010
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendants' Motion to Stay (Doc. # 7), which was filed on April 19, 2010. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the Motion on June 2, 2010. (Doc. # 13). For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the Motion
Analysis
Plaintiff sued Defendants on February 25, 2010, in a three count complaint alleging that Defendant SAB Investors defaulted on a $320,000 loan and further alleging that Defendants Chris and Alexander Sullivan breached their guaranty of that loan.
Defendants move to stay this action for at least one year in favor of a case pending in state court in Pinellas County, Florida. However, Defendants utterly fail to identify any "extraordinary circumstance" warranting abstention in this case.See Colorado River Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976); Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 4 (1989); Ambrosia Coal Constr. Co. v. Morales, 368 F.3d 1320, 1328 (11th Cir. 2004) ("Federal courts have a virtually unflagging obligation to exercise the jurisdiction given them.").
This Court "must take an active role in managing cases on [its] docket." Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1366 (11th Cir. 1997). If this Court were to grant the Motion, the parties would not be obligated to file a Case Management Report, and no Case Management and Scheduling Order would be issued. The case would not be on track for a speedy determination, as required by Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
As stated in Chudasama, 123 F.3d at 1366, this Court enjoys broad discretion "in deciding how best to manage the cases before [it]" and the Court determines that it is appropriate to deny the Motion.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Defendants' Motion to Stay (Doc. # 7) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida.