Devillier et al v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, No. 3:2020cv00223 - Document 130 (S.D. Tex. 2023)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 110 Opposed MOTION to Stay . (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew M Edison) Parties notified.(rcastro, 3)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Devillier et al v. THE STATE OF TEXAS Doc. 130 Case 3:20-cv-00223 Document 130 Filed on 04/10/23 in TXSD Page 1 of 2 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION RICHARD & WENDY DEVILLIER, et al., Plaintiffs. V. STATE OF TEXAS, Defendant. April 10, 2023 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-cv-00223 § § § § § OPINION AND ORDER The State of Texas has filed a motion requesting to indefinitely stay this action. See Dkt. 110. Plaintiffs forcefully oppose the relief sought. At the outset, let me note that a district court possesses “general discretionary power to stay proceedings before it in the control of its docket and in the interests of justice.” McKnight v. Blanchard, 667 F.2d 477, 479 (5th Cir. 1982). This discretion is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Fifth Circuit has explained that granting an indefinite stay should not be an everyday occurrence. See Coastal (Bermuda) Ltd. v. E.W. Saybolt & Co., 761 F.2d 198, 204 (5th Cir. 1985) (“The granting of indefinite stays should not be a quotidian exercise.”). The party seeking to stay a case “bears a heavy burden to show why a stay should be granted.” Id. at 203 n.6. “Where a discretionary stay is proposed, something close to genuine necessity should be the mother of its invocation.” Id. I am at a complete loss to understand why a stay is necessary in this matter. This case has been on file for nearly three years, and the parties have worked diligently to prepare for trial. Discovery concluded on March 24, 2023. There is a pending motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 69), which is ripe for a decision. Also on file is a fully briefed Motion to Strike Defendant’s Expert Reports (Dkt. 103), as Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:20-cv-00223 Document 130 Filed on 04/10/23 in TXSD Page 2 of 2 well as a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 109), which needs to be addressed once briefing is completed later this month. The parties have until April 27, 2023, to file additional dispositive motions for the court to consider. The pending motions need to be addressed. I see no valid reason to delay resolution of these motions until the United States Supreme Court decides whether to grant certiorari on Plaintiffs’ Takings Clause claim. Let’s get all of these referenced motions decided promptly. Once we do that, we can recalibrate and see where we are and when a trial date needs to be set. Accordingly, the State of Texas’s Opposed First Motion to Stay the Proceedings (Dkt. 110) is DENIED. SIGNED this 10th day of April 2023. ______________________________ ANDREW M. EDISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
