Marin-Santiago v. Canela

United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

Marin-Santiago v. Canela

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA WAYCROSS DIVISION

MARICELA MARIN-SANTIAGO, et al.,

Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:21-cv-61

v.

GUAMARA CANELA, et al.,

Defendants.

O RDE R This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay. Doc. 40. No Defendant has responded, and the time to do so has expired. Plaintiffs ask the Court to stay this case, except for their ability to seek leave to amend their Amended Complaint, based on

18 U.S.C. § 1591

(b)(1). Section 1595(b)(1) provides, “Any civil action filed under subsection (a) [of § 1595] shall be stayed during the pendency of any criminal action arising out of the same occurrence in which the claimant is the victim.” This case involves allegations under

18 U.S.C. § 1595

. Doc. 5 at 30–32. Plaintiffs further explain the criminal action in United States v. Patricio, No. 5:21-cr-9 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 5, 2021), in which Plaintiffs are the victims, arises out of the same occurrence as the instant suit. Doc. 40 at 4. Finally, Plaintiffs explain they need a carve out for their ability to seek leave to file a second Amended Complaint because of certain Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) deadlines.

Id. at 3

. Plaintiffs’ Motion is due to be granted under the plain and mandatory language of

18 U.S.C. § 1591

(b)(1). See Tianming Wang v. Gold Mantis Constr. Decoration (CNMI), No. 1:18- cv-30,

2020 WL 5983939

, at *2 (D.M.I. Oct. 9, 2020) (citing Plaintiff A. v. Schair,

744 F.3d 1247, 1254

(11th Cir. 2014)). Moreover, no Defendant has opposed Plaintiffs’ Motion; thus, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay is due to be granted as unopposed under Local Rule 7.5 (“Failure to respond within the applicable time period shall indicate that there 1s no opposition to a motion.”). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion and STAYS this case while the criminal proceedings in United States v. Patricio remain pending. However, this stay will not prevent Plaintiffs from seeking leave to amend their Amended Complaint. Within 14 days of the conclusion of the proceedings in United States v. Patricio, Plaintiffs shall confer with Defendants and submit an amended Rule 26(f) Report. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to terminate the parties’ current Rule 26(f) Report, doc. 41. SO ORDERED, this 12th day of April, 2022.

Bc UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Reference

Status
Unknown