UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-23649-BLOOM/Becerra

ARLEN HOUSE CONDOMINIUM

ASSOCIATION, INC., and ARLEN

HOUSE WEST CONDOMINIUM

ASSOCIATION, INC,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ROCKHILL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/ 

ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY ACTION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Rockhill Insurance Company’s Motion to 

Stay Action Pending Ruling on Motion to Dismiss, filed on March 22, 2023. ECF No. [87] 

(“Motion”). 

In the Motion, Defendant requests that this Court stay the action pending the Court’s 

decision on Rockhill’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for failure to file suit 

within the applicable statute of limitations, ECF No. [70]. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file and 

serve an opposing memorandum was April 5, 2023, but Plaintiffs have not filed that memorandum 

as of the date of this Order.1

 

A district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 

control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Motions to stay discovery 

1 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c)(1), a party that opposes a motion shall file and serve an opposing 

memorandum of law no later than fourteen (14) days after service of the motion and that failure to do so 

may be deemed sufficient cause for granting the motion by default.

Case 1:22-cv-23649-BB Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/11/2023 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 22-cv-23649-BLOOM/Becerra

2

“are not favored because when discovery is delayed or prolonged it can create case management 

problems which impede the Court’s responsibility to expedite discovery and cause unnecessary 

litigation expenses and problems.” Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997). 

“[D]iscovery stay motions are generally denied except where a specific showing of prejudice or 

burdensomeness is made.” Montoya v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 14-20474-CIV, 2014 WL 2807617, 

at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 20, 2014). The party moving for a stay of discovery has “the burden of 

showing good cause and reasonableness.” Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652.

“While it is not necessary for the Court to, in effect, decide the motion to dismiss to 

determine whether the motion to stay discovery should be granted, it is necessary for the Court to 

‘take a preliminary peek’ at the merits of the motion to dismiss to see if it appears to be clearly 

meritorious and truly case dispositive.” Id. at 652-53. “[A] motion to stay discovery . . . is rarely 

appropriate unless resolution of the motion will dispose of the entire case.” Bocciolone v. 

Solowsky, No. 08-20200-CIV, 2008 WL 2906719, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 24, 2008). Further, 

“discovery stay motions are generally denied except where a specific showing of prejudice or 

burdensomeness is made or where a statute dictates that a stay is appropriate or mandatory.” 

Montoya, 2014 WL 2807617, at *2. “Ultimately, the proponent of the stay bears the burden of 

demonstrating its necessity, appropriateness, and reasonableness.” Ray v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 

12-61528-CIV, 2012 WL 5471793, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2012).

As an initial matter, the Court does not find that Defendant has demonstrated that discovery 

would be unduly burdensome, much less has Defendant made a “specific showing” of prejudice 

or difficulty that is required to impose a stay on discovery. Discovery in this case is scheduled to 

close on July 11, 2023, according to this Court’s Scheduling Order. ECF No. [71]. Rather, 

Defendant submits that its motion to dismiss is case dispositive and meritorious in light of 

supplemental authorities entered on February 2023 from this District that Defendant contends 

Case 1:22-cv-23649-BB Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/11/2023 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 22-cv-23649-BLOOM/Becerra

3

reject the arguments that Plaintiffs’ raise in their opposition to the motion to dismiss. ECF No. [87] 

at 2-3. Since a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the limitations period has run is truly case 

dispositive,2 the issue here is whether the merits of Defendant’s motion are “clearly meritorious.” 

See Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652-53. In its response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs 

argue in part that its claims should be equitably tolled on the grounds that it diligently and 

reasonably complied with the plain language of Florida Statute § 627.70152.3 ECF No. [80] at 18-

21 (citing Frazier v. Baker Material Handling Corp., 559 So. 2d 1091, 1092 (Fla. 1990)). It 

appears that Defendant does not address that argument in its Reply. See ECF No. [81] at 8-11 

(responding to Plaintiffs’ argument on equitable estoppel). As such, “it is not so clear on its face 

that there appears to be an immediate and clear possibility that [the motion to dismiss] will be 

granted” on the Court’s “preliminary peek” of the merits of that motion. Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 

653 (citing Simpson v. Specialty Retail Concepts, Inc., 121 F.R.D. 261, 263 (M.D.N.C.1988)). 

On balance, the possibility that the Court will ultimately grant motion to dismiss does not 

outweigh the harm produced by a delay in discovery, expected to be completed shortly on July 11, 

2023. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Stay Action 

Pending Ruling on Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [87], is DENIED.

2 See Brandt v. Lazard Freres & Co., LLC, No. 96-2653-CIV-DAVIS, 1997 WL 469325, at *5 (S.D. Fla. 

Aug. 1, 1997) (dismissing action on grounds that claims were time barred). 3 Florida State § 627.70152 the statute on which it relies to argue that the limitations period here had been 

tolled for ten (10) days on account of Plaintiff providing notice of litigation within the limitations period 

and before the end of that 10-day period.

Case 1:22-cv-23649-BB Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/11/2023 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 22-cv-23649-BLOOM/Becerra

4

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on April 10, 2023.

__________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-23649-BB Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/11/2023 Page 4 of 4