UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DANIEL SKIDMORE, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 

v. Civil Case No. 14-13031 

Honorable Linda V. Parker 

 

ACCESS GROUP, INC., 

EXPERIAN, KENTUCKY 

HIGHER EDUCATION 

STUDENT LOAN CORP., and 

MRS BPO, LLC, 

 Defendants. 

__________________________/

 

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT ACCESS GROUP, 

INC.’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY THE DEADLINE TO 

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 In this action, filed August 4, 2014, Plaintiff Daniel Skidmore (“Plaintiff”) 

claims that Defendants violated state and federal law by failing to properly process 

payments made toward his student loans and then by reporting the loans as unpaid 

to credit reporting agencies. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 

11, 2015. Defendant Access Group, Inc. (“AGI”) and Defendant Kentucky Higher 

Education Student Loan Corp. (“KHESLC”) filed motions to dismiss on March 24 

and 25, 2015, respectively. Those motions remain pending before the Court. On 

October 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against 

4:14-cv-13031-LVP-RSW Doc # 62 Filed 10/27/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 774
2 

Defendant Access Group, Inc. for Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and 

Breach of Contract Pursuant to Rule 56. AGI now asks the Court to stay the 

deadline for it to respond to Plaintiff’s motion until disposition of the existing 

motions to dismiss. (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff opposes AGI’s request. (ECF No. 

61.) 

 This Court concludes that it is appropriate to stay the briefing with respect to 

Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment pending the resolution of AGI’s 

motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court has held that “the power to stay 

proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the 

disposition of the causes in its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, 

for counsel and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 

(1936). The exercise of such authority is within the court’s discretion. Ohio Envtl. 

Council v. United States Dist. Ct., S.D. Ohio, 565 F.2d 393, 396 (6th Cir. 1977). 

In the event the Court grants AGI’s motion to dismiss in whole or in part, 

the issues that remain to be addressed in this litigation will be narrowed. AGI 

should not be required to respond to arguments in Plaintiff’s summary judgment 

motion that may be rendered moot by the Court’s decision on the pending motion 

to dismiss. Plaintiff will not suffer prejudice by what the Court hopes will be a 

minimal delay in the briefing with respect to his summary judgment motion. 

4:14-cv-13031-LVP-RSW Doc # 62 Filed 10/27/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 775
3 

 Therefore, the Court is GRANTING AGI’s Emergency Motion to Stay the 

Deadline to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. AGI’s 

response to Plaintiff’s motion shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days of the 

filing of the Court’s decision on AGI’s motion to dismiss unless the Court’s 

decision results in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against AGI and AGI’s 

dismissal as a party to this action. 

SO ORDERED. 

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 27, 2015 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of 

record and/or pro se parties on this date, October 27, 2015, by electronic and/or 

U.S. First Class mail. 

 s/ Richard Loury 

 Case Manager 

4:14-cv-13031-LVP-RSW Doc # 62 Filed 10/27/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 776