Porter et al v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
WILMA PORTER and TERRY PORTER, 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-187-R
)
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY 	)
COMPANY, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Deadlines [Doc. No. 56], which is
fully briefed [Doc. Nos. 67, 71] and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to Respond
to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike [Doc. No. 72].1
Plaintiffs seek a stay of all remaining scheduling order deadlines due to outstanding
substantive and discovery matters, including a pending motion to remand and multiple
discovery motions. Plaintiffs also seek an order extending the deadline to respond to State
Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike until the discovery motions
have been resolved. State Farm opposes the request, arguing that a continued delay of this
case is prejudicial and unwarranted, particularly given that State Farm has made every
effort to comply with the scheduling order deadlines.
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court
to control disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself,
1 In the interest of efficiency, this order has issued prior to expiration of the time to file a response brief for
this motion. The Court notes Defendant’s objection to the requested relief.
Case 5:25-cv-00187-R Document 74 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 2

for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). In
considering whether a stay is appropriate, a court “must weigh competing interests and
maintain an even balance.” Id. The burden is on the party requesting a stay to “make out a
clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” Id.
The Court is persuaded that a stay of the remaining deadlines is warranted. There
are several significant discovery issues that impact Plaintiffs’ ability to prepare its case and
respond to State Farm’s dispositive motion. There is also a pending motion challenging the
Court’s subject matter jurisdiction that must be resolved before the case can proceed
further.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Deadlines [Doc. No. 56] and Plaintiffs’
Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
and Motion to Strike [Doc. No. 72] are GRANTED. The unexpired deadlines, including
the deadline to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike, are
stricken. A revised scheduling order will be entered following a decision on the discovery
and other motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7 th day of April, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-00187-R Document 74 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 2