Tjaden v. Brutlag, Trucke & Doherty, P.A.
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:24-cv-01452
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Tjaden v. Brutlag, Judge Foster denied Brutlag’s request to pause discovery while its motion to strike class allegations was pending.
Brutlag, Trucke & Doherty, P.A.’s request to pause discovery and related deadlines was denied; the plaintiffs’ proposed class action and principal claims were not resolved by this order.
What happened
In Tjaden v. Brutlag, James and Amanda Tjaden brought a proposed class action against Brutlag, Trucke & Doherty, P.A., and two other entities, alleging violations of three consumer-protection laws.
Brutlag asked the court to pause discovery, the pretrial order, and other deadlines while its motion to strike the class allegations was pending. The court found that the motion would address only the class allegations and would not resolve any of the plaintiffs’ main claims, so it denied the request to pause discovery.
Judge Dulce J. Foster denied Brutlag’s Motion to Stay Discovery and stated that the court would schedule a pretrial conference separately.
The detailed version
- Tjaden v. Brutlag, Trucke & Doherty, P.A. · No. 0:24-cv-01452
- Katherine Menendez
- June 18, 2024
Background
James and Amanda Tjaden filed a proposed class action against Brutlag, Trucke & Doherty, P.A. (BTD), Spring Lake Park Lumber Co., and Perfekt, Inc. The complaint seeks actual and statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs based on alleged violations of the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
BTD separately moved to strike the class allegations against it, which would allow the plaintiffs to proceed against BTD only on an individual basis. Alternatively, BTD asked that the class allegations be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. BTD then moved to stay discovery, entry of a pretrial order, and other deadlines until the court ruled on the motion to strike. The plaintiffs did not respond to the motion to stay.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may stay discovery when there is good cause. Courts balance the burden on the party seeking the stay against the other party’s interest in obtaining discovery. Filing a potentially case-ending motion does not ordinarily establish good cause, although a stay may be appropriate when the motion could resolve all or substantially all of the case and has substantial legal grounds.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that BTD’s motion to strike would address only the class allegations. Even if granted, that motion would not dispose of all, substantially all, or any of the principal claims asserted in the case. The filing of the motion therefore did not establish good cause for staying discovery.
Disposition
The court denied Defendant Brutlag, Trucke & Doherty, P.A.’s Motion to Stay Discovery. The court stated that it would schedule a pretrial conference by a separate order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.