1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO.: 9:22-cv-81883- RAR

BRITTANY ROBERSON, REBECCA

FREEMAN, BIANCA VIÑAS, TIFFANY 

KING, and TRESHA THOMPSON, 

individually and on behalf of others 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

HEALTH CAREER INSTITUTE LLC (dba

HCI COLLEGE LLC and HCI ACQUISITION LLC),

FLORIAN EDUCATION INVESTORS LLC, and

STEVEN W. HART, 

Defendants.

/

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY THE ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN SUBPOENAS 

PENDING RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS1

Defendants, HEALTH CAREER INSTITUTE LLC (“HCI”) FLORIAN EDUCATION 

INVESTORS LLC (“Florian”), and STEVEN W. HART (“Hart”), by and through undersigned 

counsel, and pursuant to S.D. Fla. Local Rule 7.1, file this Motion to Stay the Issuance of 

Subpoenas pending a ruling on Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [DE 46], and in support 

hereof state as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

 1 By filing this Motion, the parties are not waiving any ground to contest jurisdiction or any of 

the other grounds raised in their motions to dismiss. Defendant STEVEN HART will file a 

motion to dismiss based on personal jurisdiction as well as the failure to state a cause of action 

prior to the deadline for same. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 1 of 6
2

HCI College provides Associate of Science in Nursing programs at its West Palm Beach 

and Fort Lauderdale campuses (“ADN Programs”). DE 40, ¶¶1-2,42. HCI College obtained 

approval from the Florida Board of Nursing (“BON”) to operate its ADN Programs. DE 40,

¶¶51,82,89,96.

Plaintiffs, former students of HCI College’s ADN Programs, DE 40,¶¶37-41, have filed 

a ten Count Amended Complaint alleging: Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, 

Fla. Stat. §501.201, et. seq. (“FDUTPA”) violations relating to educational services provided in 

HCI College’s ADN Programs (Counts 1,2,3,6 and 7); Breach of Contract based on HCI 

College’s enrollment agreements and catalog relating to requirements and clinical placements in 

the ADN Programs (Counts 4 and 5); Unjust Enrichment based on alleged payments to HCI for a 

course required in HCI College’s ADN Programs (Count 8); Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 

U.S.C. §1691, et. seq. (“ECOA”) violation for HCI allegedly targeting HCI College’s ADN 

Programs to individuals based on race and extending credit for an illusory program (Count 9); 

and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000d, et. seq. (“Title VI”) violation for 

intentional discrimination against Black people in connection with making federal student loans 

for enrollment in HCI College’s ADN Program or for provision of educational services by HCI 

and targeting Black people with their predatory product (Count 10). DE 40,¶¶460-528.

Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoenas on March 9, 2023 indicating their 

intent to serve six subpoenas in this case, including: (1) the Florida Board of Nursing, (2) Florida 

Commission for Independent Education, (3) Florida Office of Financial Regulation, (4) HCI’s 

accreditor, the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges, (5) the Accreditation 

Commission for Education in Nursing, and (6) the Florida Department of Revenue. [See Notice 

of Intent with attached subpoenas, attached as Exhibit 1]. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 2 of 6
3

Because of the wide ranging nature of the Amended Complaint, it is currently unknown

whether or how the Court’s ruling might affect the relevancy of these discovery efforts, leaving 

the undersigned unaware which of these referenced subpoenas, or other discovery requests, may 

be objectionable based on how the Court rules. Accordingly, Defendants request that the Court

enter an Order staying the discovery on this case, including the issuance of these Subpoenas until 

there is clarity on which Counts survive the Motion to Dismiss.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

“[D]istrict courts are entitled to broad discretion in managing pretrial discovery in 

managing matters.” Perez v. Miami–Dade Cty., 297 F.3d 1255, 1263 (11th Cir. 2002). We 

“emphasize[ ] 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.” Id. Granting a discovery stay until an impending motion to 

dismiss is resolved is a proper exercise of that responsibility. Motions to dismiss for failure to 

state a claim “present a purely legal question; there are no issues of fact because the allegations 

contained in the pleading are presumed to be true. Therefore, neither the parties nor the court has 

any need for discovery before the court rules on the motion.” Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp.,

123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). Indeed, motions to dismiss should,

ideally, “be resolved before discovery begins.” Id. Accordingly, it is within the Court’s sound 

discretion to grant the instant motion. Strozier v. Walmart, Inc., 2022 WL 4110157 (N.D. Fla. 

Sept 8, 2022); Moore v. Potter, 141 Fed. Appx. 803, 807-08 (11th Cir. 2005) (unpublished 

opinion)(finding no error in the District Court's order staying discovery pending resolution of a 

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief). 

Defendants recognize that they must demonstrate good cause and reasonableness, and 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 3 of 6
4

toward that end rest on the arguments set forth in the Motions to Dismiss which demonstrate the 

Amended Complaint fails to state a viable cause of action as to any Defendant. “[C]ourts have 

held good cause to stay discovery exists wherein ‘resolution of a preliminary motion may dispose 

of the entire action.’ ” Nankivil v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 216 F.R.D. 689, 692 (M.D. Fla.), aff'd,

87 F. App'x 713 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Association Fe Y Allegria v. Republic of Ecuador, 1999 

WL 147716 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.16, 1999)). “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.” Feldman, 176 F.R.D. 651,

652–53 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 2, 1997). The Court also “must balance the harm produced by delay in 

discovery against the possibility that the [dispositive] motion will be granted and entirely 

eliminate the need for such discovery.” Rubinstein v. Keshet Inter Vivos Tr., 2018 WL 3730868, 

at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2018) (quoting Bocciolone v. Solowsky, 2008 WL 2906719, at *2 (S.D. 

Fla. July 24, 2008)). As set forth in the Motions Dismiss, Plaintiffs have failed to assert any viable 

cause of action in the Amended Complaint. Thus, Defendants seek a stay until the Court rules on 

the Motions.

Second, with regard to Florian and Hart, “a court has broad discretion to stay 

merits discovery and limit discovery to jurisdictional issues pending the resolution of a

dispositive motion based on lack of personal jurisdiction.” Wachovia Financial Services, Inc. v.

Birdman, 2010 WL 2966551 (S.D. Fla. May 6, 2010). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

has acknowledged that motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction may require limited

discovery before a meaningful ruling can be made. Chudasama, 123 F. 3d at 1367. However,

“general discovery” should be stayed until such time as the court rules on a motion to dismiss for

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 4 of 6
5

lack of personal jurisdiction. See Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. Texas Fixture 

Installers, 2010 WL 2465185 at 2 (M.D. Fla. Jun. 9, 2010); see also Gleneagle, 602 So. 2d

1282, 1284 (Fla. 1992) (discovery conducted during pendency of a motion to dismiss for lack of

personal jurisdiction should not address merits of a case or be broad, onerous or expansive).

Facially, these subpoenas appear to relate to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, not 

jurisdictional issues. Personal jurisdiction is a threshold issue that must be determined prior to

merits discovery. See Wachovia Fin. Servs. Inc. v. Birdman, 2010 WL 2966551 (S.D. 

Fla. May 6, 2010) (“Discovery on the merits of Plaintiff's claims against the [Defendants] is

unduly burdensome and will not assist the Court in determining the threshold issue of 

personal jurisdiction over the [Defendants].”). The Motions to Dismiss filed on behalf of 

Florian and Hart present a threshold issue for this Court that must be resolved before merits

discovery should be permitted. Florian and Hart are entitled to a stay on all merits discovery

including, but not limited to, the instant Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoenas, until the Court 

rules upon the Motions to Dismiss filed on behalf of Florian and Hart. 

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Defendants, HEALTH CAREER INSTITUTE LLC (dba HCI 

COLLEGE LLC and HCI ACQUISITION LLC), FLORIAN EDUCATION INVESTORS LLC, 

and STEVEN HART respectfully request this Court grant this Motion to Stay the Issuance of 

Subpoenas, and enter an Order as set forth herein, and for any alternative relief the Court deems 

appropriate. 

Certificate of Good Faith Conference

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)(A), I hereby certify that counsel for the movant has 

conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs, who object to this motion.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 5 of 6
6

KUBICKI DRAPER

110 East Broward Boulevard, 

Suite 1400

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Direct Line: (954) 713-2323

MJC-KD@kubickidraper.com

BF-KD@kubickidraper.com

BY: /S/ Michael J. Carney

 MICHAEL J. CARNEY

Florida Bar No. 44326

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 6 of 6