United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division
ROBERTO MANUEL CHAVEZ YANEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ROBERTO CHAVEZ CELIS, DECEASED; LETICIA CELIS ORTEGA, INDIVIDUALLY, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ROBERTO CHAVEZ CELIS, DECEASED; SUSANA CHAVEZ CELIS, INDIVIDUALLY, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ROBERTO CHAVEZ CELIS, DECEASED; CESAR CHAVEZ CELIS, INDIVIDUALLY, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ROBERTO CHAVEZ CELIS, DECEASED; AND MIGUEL CHAVEZ CELIS, INDIVIDUALLY, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ROBERTO CHAVEZ CELIS, DECEASED; Plaintiffs,
v.
WWGAF, INC., UME, INC, Defendants.
ORDER
ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY, UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before
the Court in the above-styled cause of action Defendants'
Motion for Status Conference and Protection [#13], which was
referred to the undersigned for disposition. Consistent with
the referral, the Court held a status conference in this case
on November 8, 2019, at which all parties were present
through counsel.
Contained
within in same filing as the motion before the Court were the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
and Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Judge
Ezra dismissed these motions as moot in light of the filing
of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in the same text Order
by which he referred the instant motion. Defendants'
Motion for Status Conference and Protection requests that the
Court stay Defendants' obligation to respond to
Plaintiffs' pending written discovery until the Court
rules on the threshold issues Defendants raised in their
motions to dismiss.
Although
Judge Ezra's dismissal of the Defendants' motions to
dismiss would have mooted this request for relief, prior to
the status conference Defendant WWGAF filed a renewed Motion
to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim along with its
Answer, acknowledging that Plaintiffs had cured the
jurisdictional defects in their Original Pleading, but
re-urging their argument that Plaintiffs' claims should
be dismissed because Plaintiffs cannot establish an essential
element of their negligence claims, that Defendants owed the
decedent a legal duty. Although Defendant UME had not yet
filed an answer or other responsive pleading to the Amended
Complaint at the time of the status conference, UME
represented at the hearing that it would also file a
responsive pleading seeking dismissal for lack of duty as
well. (The Tuesday following the hearing, Defendant UME did,
in fact, file its Motion to Dismiss.) Thus, the relief
Defendants seek-protection from discovery until the threshold
duty question is decided- remains ripe.
At the
status conference, the parties briefly stated their legal
positions on the issue of Defendants' duty but were
unable to agree about certain factual predicates related to
that issue, and thus it appears some discovery may be
necessary for the Court to be able to rule on the duty issue.
According to the parties, Plaintiffs' pending written
discovery requests are expansive in scope and not limited to
the duty issue. During the hearing, Plaintiffs agreed to
withdraw their pending written discovery requests. Phased
discovery would conserve the parties' and judicial
discovery in this case. See Petrus v. Bowen, 833
F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987) (trial court has broad
discretion and inherent power to stay or limit discovery
until preliminary questions that may dispose of case are
determined). Therefore, at this time, the Court will order
the parties to limit discovery to the threshold issue of duty
and to brief the Court on the same after they have completed
that limited discovery or reached agreements regarding facts
that can be stipulated (e.g., the ownership of the river, the
nature of the decedent's relationship with each
Defendant, etc.). Although Defendants have presented their
duty arguments in motions to dismiss, if evidence is required
to resolve the disputed question, then the motions may have
to be converted to summary-judgment motions. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(d).
In
accordance with the foregoing, and to memorialize the rulings
the Court announced at the status conference, the Court now
enters the following:
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that action Defendants' Motion
for Status Conference and Protection [#13] is
GRANTED as follows:
• Plaintiffs are ordered to withdraw their existing
served discovery in accordance with their agreement at the
conference;
• Both parties are ordered to limit their discovery to
facts relevant to the question of whether Defendants owed a
legal duty to the deceased;
• Defendant UME, Inc. is permitted to file a motion to
dismiss on legal duty, to which Plaintiffs will have 14 days
to respond under this Court's Local Rules;[1]
• All other discovery is stayed pending the District
Court's resolution of the pending motions to dismiss.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED.
---------