United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Marcy Brooks and Samuel Hernandez, 

on behalf of themselves and all others 

similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.

Event Entertainment Group, Inc., 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-22495-Civ-Scola

Consol. Case 20-22185-Civ-Scola

Order Granting Temporary Stay

The Plaintiffs, ticket holders for the Ultra Music Festival, in this putative 

class-action case, seek to recover damages from Defendant Event 

Entertainment Group, Inc., for canceling or postponing the festival just a few 

days before its scheduled start. (Pls.’ Resp. to Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 17.) In 

response, Event Entertainment has moved to compel arbitration based on an 

arbitration clause in the parties’ ticket contracts. (Def.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF 

No. 14.) In light of its motion to compel arbitration, Event Entertainment now 

seeks a motion to stay certain deadlines until the motion to compel has been 

ruled upon. (Def.’s Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 21.) The Plaintiffs object to such a 

stay, complaining the Court’s initial order, requiring the parties to meet and 

confer and file a joint conference report, is still in effect and, regardless, Event 

Entertainment has not met its burden of establishing the need for such a stay. 

(Pls.’ Resp. to Mot. for Stay, ECF No. 23.) After review, in light of Event 

Entertainment’s motion to compel arbitration, the Court finds, a stay 

warranted and grants Event Entertainment’s motion (ECF No. 21).

District courts are given “broad discretion over the management of pretrial activities, including discovery and scheduling.” Johnson v. Bd. of Regents 

of Univ. of Ga., 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001). As a general rule, 

preliminary motions which may likely dispose of an entire suit should be 

resolved as soon as practicable to obviate avoidable discovery costs. See 

Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1368 (11th Cir. 1997) (“If 

the district court dismisses a nonmeritorious claim before discovery has begun, 

unnecessary costs to the litigants and to the court system can be avoided.”). 

When a resolution of a motion will dispose of an entire case, a request to stay 

discovery, pending its resolution, may be appropriate. See McCabe v. Foley, 233 

F.R.D. 683, 685 (M.D. Fla. 2006) (“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.”). The Court also finds “that the contractual 

Case 1:20-cv-22495-RNS Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2020 Page 1 of 3
questions raised by a motion to compel arbitration are sufficiently analogous to 

the dispositive issues raised by a motion to dismiss” to warrant consideration 

under this framework. Internaves De Mexico s.a. de C.V. v. Andromeda 

Steamship Corp., 16-81719-CIV, 2017 WL 7794599, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 

2017) (Middlebrooks, J.) Indeed, the Court agrees “[i]t would be a waste of time 

and expense to require the [p]arties to exchange documents and interrogatories 

and depose witnesses when the Court may very well determine that the 

contract requires an arbitrator to resolve this dispute.” Id. at *2.

Additionally, “the Eleventh Circuit has held that one factor in 

determining whether a party waives its right to arbitration is the extent to 

which ‘a party seeking arbitration substantially participates in litigation to a 

point inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate.’” Id. (quoting Citibank, N.A. v. 

Stok & Assoc., P.A., 387 F. App’x 921, 924 (11th Cir. 2010)). Since conferring 

about discovery and filing a joint plan and proposed schedule, in addition to 

exchanging discovery, could be viewed as substantial participation, not 

granting a stay would force Event Entertainment to take action that could be 

construed as inconsistent with Event Entertainment’s intent to arbitrate. 

Further, the Plaintiffs have not identified any prejudice they will suffer as a 

result of a temporary stay. In fact, to the contrary, the Court finds, if anything,

the Court’s as well as both parties’ resources will be conserved as a result of a 

stay. 

Finally, in considering the balance, a court may take a “preliminary 

peek” at the merits of a motion to see if it “appears to be clearly meritorious 

and truly case dispositive.” McCabe v. Foley, 233 F.R.D. 683, 685 (M.D. Fla. 

2006). After reviewing Event Entertainment’s motion to dismiss and the 

Plaintiffs’ response thereto, the Court finds the motion to compel to have a 

strong likelihood of being granted. See Ray v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 12-61528-

CIV, 2012 WL 5471793, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2012) (Scola, J.) (quoting 

Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652–53 (M.D.Fla.1997)). And, if the motion 

is granted, proceeding any further in this forum would ultimately be improper.

Accordingly, the Court grants Event Entertainment’s motion to stay

(ECF No. 21) the requirement that the parties engage in a Local Rule 16.1 

conference or submit a Local Rule 16.1 schedule report until the Court has 

ruled on the motion to compel. The Court additionally stays all other discovery

deadlines and requirements until it enters an order on the motion to compel. If 

the motion to compel is ultimately denied, discovery must immediately move 

forward. This brief stay will not cause any prejudice to the Plaintiffs who will be 

afforded sufficient opportunity to conduct discovery if their claims advance in 

this Court. The parties must file their joint discovery plan and conference 

Case 1:20-cv-22495-RNS Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2020 Page 2 of 3
report within seven days if the Court denies Event Entertainment’s motion to 

compel.

Done and ordered, in Miami, Florida, on September 15, 2020.

_______________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-22495-RNS Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2020 Page 3 of 3