Frederick v. Col-Terra Investments XIV, 1:17-cv-00410

Plaintiff Terrell Frederick sued Col-Terra Investments XIV alleging ADA violations based on inaccessible parking signage not being mounted 60 inches above the finished floor/ground as required by ADA regulations.
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing the issue is moot because defendant raised the parking signs, depriving the court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Defendant also moved to stay discovery and vacate the April 28, 2017 scheduling conference pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss; the scheduling conference had already been vacated by the Court.
Plaintiff did not file a timely response to the Motion to Stay; Plaintiff later filed an Amended Complaint which he contends moots the Motion to Dismiss and adds an additional alleged ADA violation.
The Magistrate Judge considered the stay factors from String Cheese Incident and related district practice and concluded this case is at an early stage and a dismissal on the Motion to Dismiss would be dispositive, favoring a stay of discovery.
The Court granted the Motion to Stay, stayed discovery pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss, and set a status conference for July 10, 2017; the opinion notes that if the Motion to Dismiss is declared moot discovery will remain stayed pending any renewed dismissal motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery should be stayed pending resolution of a motion to dismiss	Frederick did not oppose the stay in the filing timeline and later amended complaint argues original motion is moot	Col-Terra argues a stay is warranted because a favorable dismissal would be dispositive and would render discovery unnecessary	Court granted stay pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss
Whether the Motion to Dismiss renders the case moot and deprives jurisdiction	Amended Complaint contends original Motion to Dismiss is moot and adds an additional ADA claim	Defendant contends raising the signs mooted the original claim and seeks dismissal for lack of jurisdiction	Not finally decided here; stay ordered while Motion to Dismiss is resolved
Prejudice to plaintiff from a stay	Plaintiff did not identify specific prejudice from delay	Defendant argued proceeding with discovery would impose burdens and be wasted if dismissal granted	Court found no specific prejudice shown and that defendant would be burdened by unnecessary discovery; factor favors stay
Judicial economy vs. public interest in speedy resolution	Plaintiff asserted interest in proceeding expeditiously by general posture	Defendant emphasized conserving resources if case dismissed	Court found judicial economy favors stay; public interest does not overcome that under circumstances

No officially reported (non-WL) authorities with reporter citations were relied on in the opinion.