IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSE DIVISION

___________________________________

)

DINA PARTIN, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 4:20 cv 00065 (RH)

)

AMTEC LESS LETHAL SYSTEMS, INC., )

Defendant. )

___________________________________ )

DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY 

PENDING RESOLUTION OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS 

AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

COMES NOW, Defendant and moves this Court for a stay of discovery pending 

resolution of Defendant’s pending 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of diversity, i.e., subject 

matter jurisdiction. In support of its motion, Defendant would cite the following facts:

1. Plaintiff’s allegation of subject matter jurisdiction rests entirely on its assertion 

that diversity jurisdiction exists because Plaintiffs principal place of business is somewhere other 

than Florida.

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is based on the sworn statement of the Chief Legal 

Officer of Defendant’s parent company that Defendant’s principal place of business is in Perry, 

Florida, in which case federal diversity jurisdiction does not exist. This is an exceedingly simple 

issue, the facts underlying which Plaintiff, who was an employee at the plant in Perry, Florida, is

familiar. See Complaint at paragraph 5. Defendant does not expect her to contest the diversity 

issue. Plaintiff’s failure to oppose this motion strongly suggests she would not be prejudiced by 

a stay of discovery.

Case 4:20-cv-00065-RH-CAS Document 8 Filed 03/13/20 Page 1 of 4
2

3. Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, “a court should inquire 

into whether it has subject matter jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings. 

Indeed, it is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction 

suo sponte whenever it may be lacking.” University of South Alabama v. The American Tobacco 

Company et al, 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999); see SunTrust Bank v. Stripling, No. 4:19-cv422-MW/MJF, Slip Op. at 6 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2019) (“Absent a grant of subject-matter 

jurisdiction from Congress, a court ‘is powerless to act.’ Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 

F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999); . . . . ‘Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any 

cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function 

remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.’ Ex parte 

McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514 (1868).”). The issue raised by Defendant’s motion to 

dismiss is then both dispositive of the entire case and likely to be resolved quickly.

ARGUMENT

A stay of discovery makes sense in the circumstances of this case. There is pending 

before the Court a motion to dismiss that appears well founded and is completely dispositive of 

the case. Moreover, because the motion to dismiss questions the court’s jurisdiction it should be 

decided quickly. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. In such circumstances this court has 

authority to grant a stay. A court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its 

power to control its own docket.” Catano v. Catano, 2019 WL 6118371, ¶2 (S.D. Fla. 2019); 

see Johnson Board of Regents of University of Georgia, 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001)

(“We accord district courts broad discretion over the management of pre-trial activities including 

discovery and scheduling”). In similar circumstances, other courts have granted stays. See, e.g.,

Gibbons National Mortgage LLC, 2015 WL 12840959 at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 18, 2015) (“courts 

Case 4:20-cv-00065-RH-CAS Document 8 Filed 03/13/20 Page 2 of 4
3

have held that good cause to stay discovery exists when resolution of a dispositive motion may 

dispose of the entire action”); Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2014 WL 

12621558 at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 9, 2014) (“Where a preliminary motion may dispose of the 

entire action, a court has good cause to stay the case pending resolution of the dispositive 

motion”). A stay of discovery pending resolution of the jurisdiction issue will prevent Defendant 

from expending the time and expense necessary to prepare the defense of a case that will likely 

be dismissed.

WHEREFORE, Defendant’s ask the Court to stay all discovery pending a ruling on its 

motion to dismiss.

/s/ David L. McGee

David L. McGee

FL Bar No. 220000

BEGGS & LANE RLLP

501 Commendencia Street

Pensacola, FL 32502

(850) 432-2451 

dlm@beggslane.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

AMTEC LESS LETHAL SYSTEMS, INC.

LOCAL RULE 7.1(B) CERTIFICATE OF CONSULATION

I CERTIFY that I spoke with counsel for Plaintiff on March 12, 2020, as to their position 

on this motion who authorized me to state they have no objection to this motion.

Case 4:20-cv-00065-RH-CAS Document 8 Filed 03/13/20 Page 3 of 4
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been filed via CM/ECF for electronic distribution to 

the following on March 13, 2020:

Matthew D. MacNamara

Robert M. Scott

J. Clint Wallace

SCOTT & WALLACE LLP

209 E. Brevard St.

Tallahassee, FL 32301

/s/ David L. McGee

David L. McGee

FL Bar No. 220000

BEGGS & LANE RLLP

501 Commendencia Street

Pensacola, FL 32502

(850) 432-2451 

dlm@beggslane.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

AMTEC LESS LETHAL SYSTEMS, INC

Case 4:20-cv-00065-RH-CAS Document 8 Filed 03/13/20 Page 4 of 4