IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ELIZABETH BLEVINS, et al., ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiffs

vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-0120-CG-B 

SEYDI VAKKAS AKSUT, et al., 

Defendants

ORDER 

 This matter is before the court on the Plaintiffs’ Appeal of the Magistrate’s 

Order of April 17, 2015 staying discovery. (Doc. 100). For the reasons explained 

below, the court finds that the Order of April 17, 2015 (Doc. 95) should be affirmed. 

 Upon a party’s appeal or objection to any non-dispositive matter assigned to 

the magistrate judge, the district court “shall consider such objections and shall 

modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge’s order found to be clearly 

erroneous or contrary to law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a); accord San Shiah Enterprise 

Co., Ltd. v. Pride Shipping Corp., 783 F.Supp. 1334, 1335 (S.D. Ala. 1992); see also

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (“A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter 

under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s 

order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”). The Magistrate Judge’s orders 

“should not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion that leaves the reviewing 

court with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 

Rowlin v. Alabama Dept. of Public Safety, 200 F.R.D. 459, 460 (M.D. Ala. 

2001)(citations omitted). 

Case 2:15-cv-00120-CG-B Document 104 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 4
2

The Magistrate Judge granted the motion of Defendant Vaughan Regional 

Medical Center (“Vaughn”)(Doc. 13), “to the extent it seeks to stay discovery.” (Doc. 

95, p. 5). Defendant Vaughn had asserted that facial challenges attacking the 

sufficiency of a plaintiff’s claim should be resolved before any discovery begins. 

Plaintiffs argued that they should be granted leave to conduct discovery in order to 

respond to certain issues raised in the numerous motions filed by Defendants. The 

Magistrate Judge noted the numerous dispositive motions pending, but found that 

it was in the best interests of all involved to stay discovery because the harm caused 

by a discovery delay was less than the possibility that some of the twenty plus 

claims will be dismissed and eliminate the need for such discovery. (Doc. 95, pp. 4-

5).

Plaintiffs argue on appeal that jurisdictional discovery is potentially needed 

to respond to the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction by LifePoint 

Hospital (“LifePoint”) and that factual discovery is needed to respond to the 

remaining dispositive motions that rely upon a finding of facts. Plaintiff asserts 

that under Eaton v. Dorchester Dev., Inc., 692 F.2d 727 (11th Cir. 1982), the 

“Plaintiff must be given an opportunity to develop facts sufficient to support a 

determination on the issue of jurisdiction.” Ibid. at 731. 

Case 2:15-cv-00120-CG-B Document 104 Filed 04/29/15 Page 2 of 4
3

The court notes that Plaintiffs contend in their response to LifePoint’s motion 

to dismiss that LifePoint is subject to personal jurisdiction in Alabama pursuant to 

RICO’s provision for nationwide service of process: 18 U.S.C. § 1965(d). As such, 

Plaintiffs assert that there is no need for a minimum contacts analysis that would 

require a factual determination. Additionally, Plaintiff has moved to remand this 

case and the motion to remand must be resolved before the court can address the 

defendants’ dispositive motions. See Nichols v. Se. Health Plan of Ala., Inc., 859 

F.Supp. 553, 559 (S.D. Ala. 1993) (holding that motions to dismiss cannot be ruled 

upon when remand is proper). If this court were to grant the motion to remand, 

then this court would never reach the other pending motions. The court also notes 

that most of the issues raised in defendants’ motions are facial attacks for which no 

evidence is needed. In fact, Defendant Vaughn only moved to stay the case pending 

a determination of its motion to dismiss (Doc. 10), which it contends asserts only 

facial challenges. Plaintiff is correct that in some of the motions Defendants have 

asserted factual challenges in addition to facial challenges. For instance Baptist 

Medical Center South asserts that some claims are due to be dismissed against it 

because Dr. Aksut did not treat some of the plaintiffs at Baptist Medical Center 

South and has supported such contentions with affidavit evidence. (Doc. 20-1). 

Case 2:15-cv-00120-CG-B Document 104 Filed 04/29/15 Page 3 of 4
4

However, the Magistrate Judge only granted Vaughn’s motion to stay discovery 

pending the resolution of Vaughn’s facial challenges. 

Although Plaintiffs apparently understood the Magistrate’s order as staying 

discovery until all pending motions were ruled upon, the motion to stay only sought 

a stay pending the resolution of Vaughn’s motion to dismiss and was only granted to 

that extent. The Magistrate Judge did not indicate that the court would rule on any 

factual challenges before Plaintiffs have an opportunity to conduct discovery. The 

Magistrate’s Order stays all discovery, but if the court determines that factual 

evidence is necessary to resolve LifePoint’s motion to dismiss or to resolve any other 

pending motions, the court will lift the stay before ruling on those motions. Because 

the motion to remand and Vaughn’s motion to dismiss could significantly change 

the course of this action and alter the scope of discovery, the undersigned finds that 

the Magistrate Judge did not abuse her discretion in granting Defendant Vaughn’s 

motion to stay discovery until Vaughn’s motion to dismiss was resolved. 

Accordingly, the Magistrate’s Order of April 17, 2015 (Doc. 95) is hereby 

AFFIRMED.

DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of April, 2015. 

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00120-CG-B Document 104 Filed 04/29/15 Page 4 of 4