United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Stay (R. Doc. 12)
filed on March 15, 2017.
Weatherspoon (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action
on or about February 10, 2017 in state court, naming as
defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association
(“Chase”) and B&BA, LLC
(“B&BA”). (R. Doc. 1-1, at 1-8).
removed the action on February 22, 2017, asserting that
neither Chase nor B&BA had been served with the Petition
at the time of removal. (R. Doc. 1 at 3). Chase subsequently
filed documents, however, indicating that service of process
was made (or attempted) on Chase on February 21, 2016,
that service of process was made (or attempted) on B&BA
on February 20, 2016. (R. Doc. 4-1 at 21-24).
March 10, 2017, Plaintiff moved for an order staying the
proceedings until April 11, 2017, and ordering B&BA to
retain counsel by April 10, 2017 because it is a legal entity
that cannot proceed without counsel. (R. Doc. 9). The Court
denied the motion on the basis that Plaintiff may seek entry
of a default pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure if B&BA does not timely file an answer or
appropriate defenses. (R. Doc. 10).
March 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand. (R. Doc.
11). In support of remand, Plaintiff argues that this Court
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant
to the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
and the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (R.
Doc. 11-1 at 2-7). Plaintiff also asserts that the member of
B&BA who consented to removal on behalf of B&BA did
not have the authority to do so because she is not an
attorney. (R. Doc. 11-1 at 2).
same day, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Stay
Discovery. (R. Doc. 12). Plaintiff asserts that a stay is
required because, in addition to lacking subject matter
jurisdiction, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over
Plaintiff. (R. Doc. 12 at 1).
26(c) allows the court to issue a protective order after a
showing of good cause “to protect a party or person
from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense.” Fed. R .Civ .P. 26(c)(1). Rule 26(c)'s
“good cause” requirement indicates that the party
seeking a protective order has the burden “to show the
necessity of its issuance, which contemplates a particular
and specific demonstration of fact as distinguished from
stereotyped and conclusory statements.” In re Terra
Int'l, Inc., 134 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir.1998)
(quoting United States v. Garrett, 571 F.2d 1323,
1326 n. 3 (5th Cir.1978)). “A trial court has broad
discretion and inherent power to stay discovery until
preliminary questions that may dispose of the case are
determined.” Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581,
583 (5th Cir.1987).
has not established that a stay is merited in light of the
pending motion to remand or Plaintiff's assertion that
the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over her. The filing of a
motion to remand does not automatically stay discovery.
Plaintiff provides no analysis or legal support in support of
a stay of discovery given the procedural posture of this
case. In light of the record, the court will not issue the
said, the Court will reset the Scheduling Conference set for
on April 27, 2017 as needed if B&BA does not make an
appearance and/or if necessary with regard to the
adjudication of the pending motion to remand. The parties are
also reminded that discovery may not commence until the
required conference pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion
to Stay (R. Doc. 12) is DENIED.
 Chase has asserted that service on it
was improper as it was made through CT Corporation, which is
not a registered agent for service of process for Chase in