Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00452/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00452-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

J. THOMAS ARENDALL, JR., *

et al., *

 *

Plaintiffs, * 

 *

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-00452-BH-B

 *

DENNIS JOSLIN JAMAICA, INC., *

et al., *

 *

Defendants. *

ORDER

This action is before the Court on Plaintiffs and Defendants

Beal Bank, S.S.B. and Jamaican Redevelopment Foundation’s Motion to

Stay Rule 26(f) Conference (Doc. 29) pending resolution of

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Doc. 25). Defendants Dennis Joslin

Jamaica, Inc., Dennis Joslin Company, LLC, Dennis Joslin Jamaica

Ltd., Rollen Gin Company, Inc., Dennis Joslin, Jane Joslin, Jimmy

Welch, Linda Welch, Willie Franklin Burnett and Carolyn Burnett

(hereinafter “the Joslin Defendants”) have filed a response in

opposition to the Motion to Stay (Doc. 30). The Joslin Defendants

contend that regardless of whether this action lands in state court

or federal court, a scheduling order will be necessary to ensure

that the case proceeds in an orderly fashion. The Joslin

Defendants further assert that limited discovery regarding the

fraudulent joinder of Steven Alford, STA Holding, Inc., and the

Tennessee Defendants is necessary in order to properly respond to

Case 1:07-cv-00452-BH-B Document 32 Filed 08/16/07 Page 1 of 3
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. 

 Courts have both the authority and responsibility for

ensuring that cases proceed in a timely manner. Chrysler Int’l

Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002); Perez v.

Miami-Dade County, 297 F.3d 1255, 1263 (11th Cir. 2002)(”Indeed, we

have repeatedly emphasized the responsibility of trial courts to

manage pretrial discovery properly in order to avoid ‘a massive

waste of judicial and private resources’ and a loss of society’s

‘confidence in the courts’ ability to administer justice.’”),

quoting Johnson Enters. of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc.,

162 F.3d 1290, 1333 (11th Cir. 1998). Upon consideration of the

parties’ arguments, and a review of the record, the undersigned

finds that it is in the best interest of the parties to delay the

Rule 26(f) planning meeting of the parties until after a ruling on

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. This way, the parties will be spared

the burden and expense of having to start the planning and

discovery process anew in state court if the Motion to Remand is

granted.

The undersigned is mindful of the Joslin Defendants’ concerns

regarding the need for discovery on the fraudulent joinder and

jurisdiction issues. While these Defendants have asserted, in very

general terms, that limited discovery is needed in order to

properly respond to the Motion to Compel, they have not provided

any information in support of their assertions. Accordingly, any

Case 1:07-cv-00452-BH-B Document 32 Filed 08/16/07 Page 2 of 3
3

party seeking to conduct limited discovery related to the pending

Motion to Remand, shall seek leave of Court, and shall set forth in

detail the specific discovery that is being sought, and explain why

said discovery is necessary. 

DONE this 16th day of August, 2007.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00452-BH-B Document 32 Filed 08/16/07 Page 3 of 3