Order | Filed: August 20, 2026
| Entered: August 20, 2026
Mayor v. University of Miami
Labor: Family and Medical Leave Act | Florida Southern
Order on Expedited Motion
PAPERLESS ORDER granting 15 Expedited Motion Stay of Discovery. THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant University of Miami's ("Defendant") Expedited Motion to Stay Discovery. [ECF No. 15 ]. For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
On July 1, 2026, Defendant removed Plaintiff Pedro Mayor's ("Plaintiff") Complaint to this Court. [ECF No. 1 , [1-2]]. The Complaint asserts seven counts for discrimination, retaliation, interference, and hostile work environment arising under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA") and the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). [ECF No. [1-2]].
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff was a victim of discriminatory and retaliatory actions based on his sex, sexual orientation, and disability while employed with Defendant. [Id.]. Plaintiff alleges he was ultimately terminated from employment after being falsely accused of sexual harassment. [Id.].
Defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint. [ECF No. 6 ]. Specifically, Defendant contends that five of the seven counts are time-barred based on the date Plaintiff received his "right to sue" letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). [Id. at 6]. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff's claims under the FCRA exceed the scope of his EEOC charge and he fails to state a claim for all counts. [Id. at 8-17].
District courts can grant a stay of discovery as part of their broad discretion in managing pretrial discovery matters. See Rivas v. The Bank of New York Mellon, 676 F. App'x 926, 932 (11th Cir. 2017). In determining whether a stay of discovery pending a motion to dismiss is appropriate, the court must balance the harm produced by a delay in discovery against the possibility that the motion will be granted and eliminate the need for such discovery. See Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1368 (11th Cir. 1997); see also James v. Hunt, 761 F. App'x. 975, 981 (11th Cir. 2018) (upholding the district court's stay of discovery especially when plaintiff's claims "would have substantially enlarged the scope of discovery" and when the claims "were largely unpersuasive"). This requires that the undersigned take a "preliminary peek" at the merits of the motion to dismiss. Point Conversions, LLC v. Lopane, No. 20-CIV-61549-RAR, 2020 WL 6700236, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2020).
Based on the undersigned's review of the Complaint, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiff's Response, a stay is warranted. Namely, Defendant's arguments regarding the untimeliness of Plaintiff's Complaint appear to be a meritorious defense and require the careful application of Florida law to Plaintiff's claims. Such defense may resolve most of the claims and significantly narrow the issues to be decided without the need for unnecessary discovery. See Chudasama, 123 F.3d at 1368 ("If the district court dismisses a nonmeritorious claim before discovery has begun, unnecessary costs to the litigants and to the court system can be avoided.").
THEREFORE, Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery [ECF No. 15 ] is GRANTED. Discovery in this matter shall be stayed pending the resolution of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 6 ]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid on 8/20/2026. (mka)