COMES NOW, Cromwell Fountain II Condominium Inc., by and through undersigned counsel, and hereby files this motion to stay proceedings with regard to its pending declaratory judgment action; and plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s expedited motion to extend time to respond to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and motion to modify scheduling order, and in support thereof, states as follows:
I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings with Regard to Its Pending Declaratory Judgment Action.
1. On March 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration as to the rights of the parties under a putative contract.
2. On March 17, 2016, Defendant filed a separate complaint alleging that Plaintiff breached the …show more content…
To the extent that additional discovery might tangentially weigh on the issues involved in Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the want of injustice is further evinced by the fact that Defendant could have—but did not—request said discovery prior to November 13, 2016. 19. In paragraphs twelve (12) and thirteen (13) of their motion, Defendant contends that it is proper to modify the scheduling order following this Courts order for Plaintiff to join nearly 300 Members who possess discoverable information and the right to be heard on issues involved in this litigation. 20. For the reasons stated in Part I, supra, the only issue to which the Members should be heard on is whether they are liable under the putative contract, and not whether Plaintiff is liable under the putative contract. The Members have no interest in Defendant’s breach of contract action against Plaintiff, because the Members’ liability under the putative contract is not at issue. As such, if the court grants the relief requested in Part I, supra, the failure to amend the scheduling order following this Court’s order directing the joinder of the Members does not result in an injustice. 21. Judicial economy would be best served by staying the declaratory judgment proceedings for the reasons articulated in Part I, supra, and denying Defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling
I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings with Regard to Its Pending Declaratory Judgment Action.
1. On March 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration as to the rights of the parties under a putative contract.
2. On March 17, 2016, Defendant filed a separate complaint alleging that Plaintiff breached the …show more content…
To the extent that additional discovery might tangentially weigh on the issues involved in Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the want of injustice is further evinced by the fact that Defendant could have—but did not—request said discovery prior to November 13, 2016. 19. In paragraphs twelve (12) and thirteen (13) of their motion, Defendant contends that it is proper to modify the scheduling order following this Courts order for Plaintiff to join nearly 300 Members who possess discoverable information and the right to be heard on issues involved in this litigation. 20. For the reasons stated in Part I, supra, the only issue to which the Members should be heard on is whether they are liable under the putative contract, and not whether Plaintiff is liable under the putative contract. The Members have no interest in Defendant’s breach of contract action against Plaintiff, because the Members’ liability under the putative contract is not at issue. As such, if the court grants the relief requested in Part I, supra, the failure to amend the scheduling order following this Court’s order directing the joinder of the Members does not result in an injustice. 21. Judicial economy would be best served by staying the declaratory judgment proceedings for the reasons articulated in Part I, supra, and denying Defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling