IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALEIDA JOHNSON, etc., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 14-0322-WS-C

 )

MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, ) 

 )

Defendant. )

 ORDER

The defendant has filed a motion to stay. (Doc. 10). The basis of the 

motion is that the plaintiff’s claim rests on a recent Eleventh Circuit decision1 and 

that the defendant in that case has sought rehearing and rehearing en banc. The 

defendant stresses that the Eleventh Circuit ruling adopts the minority position on 

an issue of central importance to this lawsuit, and the defendant is hopeful the 

Eleventh Circuit ultimately will change its mind and adopt the majority view. The 

defendant seeks a three-month stay of all proceedings in this action “pending the 

outcome of the petition for rehearing.” (Id. at 5). The plaintiff consents to a stay 

so long as it expires upon “the ruling by the Eleventh Circuit on the Petition for 

Rehearing En Banc.” (Doc. 12). 

“[A] district court [may] exercise[e] its discretion to stay a case pending the 

resolution of related proceedings in another forum ....” Ortega Trujillo v. 

Conover & Co. Communications, Inc., 221 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2000). “An 

appeals court should reverse a district court’s stay order only when the stay is 

immoderate.” Hines v. D’Artois, 531 F.2d 726, 733 (5th Cir. 1976) (internal 

quotes omitted). “[W]e believe that whether or not a stay is immoderate is a 

 1 Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 3361226 (11th Cir. 

2014). 

Case 1:14-cv-00322-WS-C Document 13 Filed 09/02/14 Page 1 of 2
2

function of two variables – the scope of the stay, and the reasons cited for ordering 

it.” Id. (internal quotes omitted) (cited in Ortega Trujillo, 221 F.3d at 1264).

A stay is immoderate when its scope is indefinite, as when it is to last “until 

the Bahamian Courts conclude their review.” Ortega Trujillo, 221 F.3d at 1264.2 

The defendant, which cites Ortega Trujillo, sidesteps this objection by requesting 

a stay of a precise, three-month duration. Such a stay would not be immoderate 

based upon its scope. 

The Court thus turns to the reason cited for seeking a stay. This is not the 

usual case in which there is an open question pending in another forum, which 

question is expected to be answered in that other forum. Here, the question has 

already been answered – the defendant simply dislikes the answer and hopes the 

answer will change. The defendant has pointed to no case approving a stay in 

such circumstances.

Nevertheless, because the proposed stay is confined to three months, and 

because the plaintiffs do not oppose it, the Court exercises its discretion in favor of 

a stay. The parties should not assume that the Court would grant an additional 

stay, or series of stays, should this stay expire without a ruling from the Eleventh 

Circuit, although the parties remain free to seek such an extension.

For the reasons set forth above, the defendant’s motion to stay proceedings 

is granted. This action is stayed through and including November 17, 2014. 

Unless extended by Court order, the stay expires at midnight on November 17, 

2014. 

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of September, 2014.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 2 See also CTI-Container Leasing Corp. v. Uiterwyk Corp., 685 F.2d 1284, 1286, 

1288 (11th Cir. 1982) (a stay “pending determination by the Iran-United States Claims 

Tribunal of its jurisdiction to hear these [third-party] claims” is indefinite); Hines, 531 

F.2d at 728, 733 (a stay pending the filing of an EEOC charge and the final conclusion of 

EEOC proceedings is indefinite).

Case 1:14-cv-00322-WS-C Document 13 Filed 09/02/14 Page 2 of 2