United States District Court 

for the 

Southern District of Florida 

Joan Riley and Linda Scott, 

individually and on behalf of all 

others, similarly situated, Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Heritage Property & Casualty 

Insurance Company, Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 22-22893-Civ-Scola 

Order Granting Temporary Stay 

 Plaintiffs Joan Riley and Linda Scott, each purchasers of residential 

property insurance policies from Defendant Heritage Property & Casualty 

Insurance Company, seek to recover interest they say they are owed on claims 

that they acknowledge were otherwise fully paid by Heritage. (Compl., ECF No. 

1.) In response, Heritage has filed a motion to dismiss (Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, 

ECF No. 15), submitting the Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because they are based 

solely on Florida Statute section 627.70131(5)(a).1 Fla. Stat. § 627.70131(5)(a) 

(“failure to comply with this subsection does not form the sole basis for a private 

cause of action”). That motion is fully briefed, and Heritage now asks the Court 

to stay discovery, pending the Court’s resolution. (Def.’s Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 

24.) The Plaintiffs object to the stay, rearguing the merits of their opposition to 

Heritage’s motion to dismiss, insisting they are suing for breach of contract, not 

for relief solely under section (5)(a). (Pls.’ Resp., ECF No. 27.) Heritage has timely 

replied. (Def.’s Reply, ECF No. 28.) Having considered the parties’ arguments and 

for the following reasons, the Court finds a limited stay in this case warranted 

and therefore grants Heritage’s request for a temporary stay of discovery. (ECF 

No. 24.) 

 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). And district courts have 

“broad authority to grant a stay.” In re Application of Alves Braga, 789 F. Supp. 

2d 1294, 1307 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (Goodman, Mag. J.) Courts consider the relative 

prejudice and hardship “worked on each party if a stay is or is not granted” and 

1 The relevant language now appears in section 627.70131(7)(a), after the section was amended, 

effective January 1, 2022. The pre-amendment version of the provision contained the language in 

section (5)(a), as opposed to (7)(a), and it is that version that is applicable to the facts of this 

case. Regardless, the language pertinent to this case, regarding the preclusion of a private right 

of action, is identical in the two versions.

Case 1:22-cv-22893-RNS Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/16/2022 Page 1 of 2
general efficiency. Fitzer v. Am. Institute of Baking, Inc., No. 209-cv-169, 2010 WL 

1955974 (S.D. Ga. May 13, 2010); Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. 

Fla. 1988) (noting that a court must also weigh “the harm produced by a delay in 

discovery” against “the likely costs and burdens of proceeding with discovery”)

(citations omitted). Moreover, so long as a stay is neither “immoderate” nor 

indefinite, a stay can be appropriate in the interest of judicial convenience. 

Ortega Trujillo v. Conover & Co. Communications, Inc., 221 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 

2000) (provided a stay will expire within reasonable limits, it is not immoderate).

In considering the balance, a court may take a “preliminary peek” at the merits 

of a dispositive 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 a “preliminary peek” at Heritage’s motion to dismiss, and the 

concomitant briefing, the Court finds the issues raised appear to be both “clearly 

meritorious and truly case dispositive.” 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)). If the motion to 

dismiss is granted in its entirety, which at this preliminary stage appears likely, 

the need for any discovery in this proceeding—including what appears to involve 

substantial class-action-related discovery—will, as Heritage explains, be 

eliminated altogether. Further, the Plaintiffs’ do not identify any harm or 

prejudice that would outweigh the efficiencies gained as a result of the 

temporary pause in the litigation of this case. The Plaintiffs will be afforded 

sufficient opportunity to conduct fulsome discovery if any of their claims 

advance in this Court.

The Court thus finds a stay warranted and grants Heritage’s motion to 

stay (ECF No. 24). Discovery is therefore stayed until this Court issues its order 

on Heritage’s motion to dismiss. If the motion is ultimately denied discovery 

must immediately move forward.

The parties must file an amended joint discovery plan and conference 

report within seven days if the Court denies Heritage’s motion. While discovery 

is stayed, the parties may not take any action related to discovery. 

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on December 16, 2022.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-22893-RNS Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/16/2022 Page 2 of 2