Opinion
1:23-cv-030
09-26-2024
Hystad Ceynar Minerals, LLC, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. XTO Energy, Inc., Defendant.
ORDER
CLARE R. HOCHHALTER, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the court is a “Joint Motion to Stay Deadlines Pending the Court's Ruling on Defendant's Upcoming Motion to Strike Class Allegations” filed by the parties on September 25, 2024 (Doc. No. 38). The Parties advise that Defendant agreed not to oppose Hystad's motion to file an amended complaint with the understanding that, once Plaintiff filed its amended complaint, Defendant will file a motion to strike the amended complaint's class allegations. Recognizing that the court's ruling on Defendant's motion to strike will directly impact the scope of discovery and the current briefing schedule for class certification, the Parties request that the court stay the case deadlines during the pendency of Defendant's motion.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), the court has broad discretion to stay case deadlines. Mau v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 2017 WL 3623794, at *2 (D.N.D. Aug. 23, 2017). Factors the court considers when determining whether a stay is appropriate include: (1) potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) hardship or inequity to the moving party if the matter is not stayed; and (3) the economy of judicial resources. Id., see also Diaz v. Dakota Travel Nurse, Inc., 2018 WL 385186, at *2 (D.N.D. Jan. 11, 2018).
Here, all three factors weighs in favor of granting the Parties' motion. Neither party will be prejudiced or incur hardship if the case is stayed as they agree that a stay is appropriate. A stay will also conserve judicial resources.
Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Parties motion (Doc. No. 38). Case deadlines shall be stayed during the pendency of Defendant's motion to strike. Within 14 days of the Court's ruling on Defendant's motion to strike, the Parties will confer on an appropriate schedule and will submit the same to the court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.