FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Orszag

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
FT! CONSULTING, INC., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
V.
*
*
*
* 	Civil No. 23-3200-BAH
JONATHAN ORSZAG ET AL,
*
Defendants.
*
JONATHAN ORSZAG, 	*
Counterclaim Plaintiff, 	*
V. 	*
FT! CONSULTING, INC., ET AL, 	*
Counterclaim Defendants. 	*
* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	*
MEMORANDUM OPINION
*
Plaintiffs FT! Consulting, Inc. ("FT!") and Compass Lexecon, LLC ("Compass")
(collectively "Plaintiffs") brought suit against Jonathan Orszag ("Orszag"), Mark Israel
("Israel''), and Econic Partners, LLC ("Econic") (collectively "Defendants") asserting various
claims arising from events surrounding the end of Orszag and Israel's employment with FT!.
ECF 277 (third amended complaint ("TAC")). 1 Orszag also filed counterclaims against FT!
and Steven Gunby alleging breach of contract, tortious interference with business relations,
and unjust enrichment. ECF 122. 2 Each Defendant has moved to dismiss the TAC. ECF 298
1 The sealed version of the TAC is docketed at ECF 277, while the redacted version is docketed
at ECF 278. The Court will cite to the complete document provided at ECF 277, but does not
include any of the information redacted in ECF 278.
2 The Court references all filings by their respective ECF numbers and page numbers by the
ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the page.
Case 8:23-cv-03200-BAH Document 352 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 6

(Econic); ECF 300 ·(Orszag); ECF 307 (Israel). 	Pending before the Court is Defendants'
motion to stay briefing on their motions to dismiss the TAC ("the motion").3 	ECF 340.• 	'
Plaintiffs oppose the motion, ECF 345, and Defendants replied, ECF 346. 	The Court has
reviewed all relevant filings and finds that no hearing is necessary. See Loe. R. 105.6 (D. Md.
2025). For the reasons stated below, the motion to stay briefing is GRANTED.
I. 	BACKGROUND 4
The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complain on May
15, 2026. ECF 276.' That decision rendered the TAC Plaintiffs' operative pleading, which is
'i
docketed at ECF 27,7 (sealed) and ECF 278 (redacted). 	Defendants each filed a motion to
dismiss the TAC. ECF 298; ECF 300; ECF 307. Orszag and Israel also each filed a motion to
compel arbitration contemporaneously with their motions to dismiss on July 17, 2026. ECF
302 (Orszag); ECF 305 (Isra~l). 	The Court adopted the parties' joint proposed briefing
schedule on August 12, 2026, urder which Defendants' reply briefs in support of their motions
'
to dismiss are due on October 15, 2026. ECF 316. Plaintiffs filed their combined response in
opposition to the motions to qismiss on September 15, 2026. 	ECF 334. 	That same day,
Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. ECF 331. Defendants
!
now move to stay the briefing on the TA.C-in particular, they seek to stay their reply brief
'
deadline. ECF 340-1, at 4 (memorandum in support of motion to stay). Plaintiffs oppose the
I
motion, ECF 345, and Defendants filed a reply, ECF 346.
I
3 Also pending befor,e the Court: are numerous other motions, including: motions to dismiss the
TAC, ECFs 298,300,307; motions to compel arbitration, ECFs 302, 305; a motion for leave
to file amended co~plaint, ECF 331; and various motions to seal, ECFs 304, 309, 3 I 0, 318,
324, 332, 335, 348. This opinion does not resolve those motions.
4 Much of the relevant factual and procedural background is set forth in the Court's previous
memorandum opinions, ECFs ,80, 112, 275, and the Court assumes familiarity with those
opinions.
2
Case 8:23-cv-03200-BAH Document 352 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 6

II. 	LEGALSTANDARD
"A district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as part of its inherent power
to control its own docket." City of Annapolis, Md. v. BP P.L.C., Civ. No. ELH-21-772, 2021
WL 2000469, at *2 (D. Md. May 19, 2021) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254
(1936)). 	The moving party bears the burden to "justify [the requested stay] by clear and
convincing circumstances outweighing potential harm to the party against whom 	it is
operative." 	Williford v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 715 F.2d 124, 127 (4th Cir. 1983).
Courts generally consider three factors when deciding a discretionary motion to stay:
(!) the impact on the orderly course of justice, sometimes referred to as judicial
economy, measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof,
and questions of Jaw which could be expected from a stay; (2) the hardship to
the moving party if the case is not stayed; and (3) the potential damage or
prejudice to the non-moving party if a stay is granted.
Bd. ofTrs. of Teamsters Loe. 631 Sec. Fund v. Arata Expositions, Inc., Civ. No. JRR-26-147,
2026 WL 933297, at *2 (D. Md. Apr. 7, 2026) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Int'/
Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 323 F. Supp. 3d 726, 731 (D. Md. 2018)).
III. 	ANALYSIS
Defendants argue that a stay of the motion to dismiss briefing schedule is warranted
pending the Court's adjudication of the motions to compel arbitration and the motion for leave
to amend. 	ECF 340-1, at 9-10. 	These motions present, in Defendants' view, "threshold
questions," such as "which pleading is operative, and which forum will hear the disputed
claims." Id. at 10. They contend that the outcome of these motions could moot, in whole or
in part, the pending motions to dismiss, and therefore the relative hardship to the parties and
judicial economy support a stay. 	Id. at 7-10. 	Plaintiffs oppose the stay, arguing that
Defendants have not met their burden to establish that such a stay is necessary. ECF 345, at 6.
Plaintiffs view the requested stay as "indefinite" and. contend that neither set of pending
3
Case 8:23-cv-03200-BAH Document 352 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 6

motions justifies the reliefDefe~dants seek. Id. at 7, 10-11. The Court agrees with Defendants
that a limited stay is ·warrantedi
The primary factor sup~orting a stay is Defendants' hardship. Defendants seek by the
present motion to a~oid a "waste of resources" in the form of briefing a motion at risk of
'
becoming moot. ECF 340-l, at7. "When a piaintifffiies an amended complaint, it generaiiy
moots any pending motions to dismiss because the original complaint is superseded." Jacobs
v. Nissan N. Am., Civ. No. GLR-22-2437, 2024 WL 3090139, at *4 n.6 (D. Md. June 20, 2024)
I
(citing Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Commc 'ns, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009)). 	In the
, 	I
same vein, when courts grant 1' plaintiffs motion to amend their complaint, they habitually
deny any pending m6tions to dismiss the then-superseded complaint. See, e.g., Palmer v. W&T
Travel Servs., Civ. No. PX-19-2588, 2020 WL 2467322, at *3 (D. Md. May 13, 2020) (granting
motion for leave to amend complaint and denying motion to dismiss superseded complaint as
moot); Morgan v. Coppin State, Univ., Civ, No. SAG-20-0427, 2020 WL 6485083; at *3 (D.
Md. Nov. 4, 2020) (same);Aco5tav. Ingerman & Horwitz, LLC, Civ. No. WDQ-14-1605, 2015
WL 795108, at *5 (D. Md. Feb. 24, 2015) (same).
:
Plaintiffs have filed a ~otion for leave to amend their complaint, ECF 331, and since
I
"it is generally improper to resolve the motion to dismiss before deciding the motion to amend,"
I
Gates v. Morris, No! 2:17-cv-03392, 2018 WL 1582470, at *2 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 29, 2018)
'
(citing Talley v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 673 Fed. App'x 329, 330 (4th Cir. 2017)),
Defendants have established that they are at risk of their motions to dismiss becoming moot in
the event the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion to amend. Defendants' pending motions to compel
arbitration create a similar risk,: although those motions, if granted, only hold the potential to
partially moot the motions to di~miss. ECF 340-1, at 9; see also Williams v. Cello P 'ship, 825
F. Supp. 3d 551, 562 (D. Mct: 2026) (denying motion to dismiss as moot when the court
"compelled [the relevant] claim_s to arbitration").
4
ii
I
Case 8:23-cv-03200-BAH Document 352 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 6

Plaintiffs, by contrast, have not demonstrated that they would suffer damage or
prejudice if the stay were granted. 	Plaintiffs argue that the stay would prejudice them by
"postpon[ing] resolution of issues to which plaintiffs already [ ] devoted significant time and
resources"-namely, the motions to dismiss-since Defendants filed the motion to stay "after·
plaintiffs devoted significant resources to oppose the motions to dismiss." 	ECF 345, at 7
(emphasis omitted) (quotations omitted). 	However, as Defendants note, ECF 346, at 4, this
argument fails to account for the fact that Plaintiffs filed their motion to amend-which forms
the basis of many of Defendants' arguments in support of the stay-on the same day Plaintiffs
filed their opposition. To the extent this sequence of events prejudices Plaintiffs, itis prejudice
of their own making.
Plaintiffs' other arguments are similarly unavailing. They contend that the requested
stay would "hinder judicial economy" by preventing the Court from deciding the motions to
dismiss "simultaneously" with the motion to amend and the motions to compel arbitration, as
Plaintiffs requested in their motion to amend. 	ECF 345, at 7-8 (capitalization altered).
However, if the Court grants Plaintiffs leave to amend, as they have requested, the motions to
dismiss can still be resolved "simultaneously" insofar as they must be denied as moot. 	See
Jacobs, 2024 WL 3090139, at *4 n.6. 	The.stay could impede judicial economy only if the
, Court denies Plaintiffs leave to amend, because then the motions to dismiss would not be ripe
for adjudication in the same opinion. Any delay in ripeness would be brief, as Defendants will
be directed to file their replies within fourteen days of any decision that may permit the TAC
to continue in its present form. See Loe.].. 105.2.a (D. Md. 2025) (setting default reply brief
deadline to fourteen days after the service of the opposition brief).
Moreover, as Defendants note, ECF 340-1, at 9-10, the requested stay is limited both
in scope and in time. Cunningham v. Homeside Fin., LLC, Civ. No. MJG-17-2088, 2017 WL
5970719, at *2 (D. Md. Dec. I, 2017) (noting that "the court must ensure that the stay is not
5
Case 8:23-cv-03200-BAH Document 352 Filed 10/09/26 Page 5 of 6

'immoderate' and li111it the scope of the stay within a reasonable time frame" (citing Landis,
299 U.S. at 257)). The stay Defendants seek would only pause the filing of the reply briefs for
three pending motions, while a~proximately eleven other motions in this case will continue on
their ordinary course to adjudication. See supra note 3. And contrary to Plaintiffs' assertion
• 	i
:
that the requested stay is "indefinite," ECF 345, at 7, the stay would automatically terminate
I
upon the Court's adjudication of the pending motions to compel arbitration and the motion to
' 	.
amend.
For those rea~ons, a limited stay is warranted. However, in the absence of a compelling
reason to extend the default deadlines established by the Local Rules, Defendants will be
I
directed to file their replies, if any, within fourteen days of the Court's resolution of the above-
' 	'
'referenced motions, rather than:tlie thirty days they requested. ECF 340-1, at 11.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to stay briefing is GRANTED. 	A separate
' 	'
implementing Order:will issue.,
'
Dated: October 9, 2026 	Isl
Brendan A. Hurson
United States District Judge
6
Case 8:23-cv-03200-BAH Document 352 Filed 10/09/26 Page 6 of 6