# Buending v. Town of Redington Beach

> District Court, M.D. Florida · February 27, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10112193

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** February 27, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10112193

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

SHAWN BUENDING, ROBERT DOHMEN,
THOMAS K. BROWN, HARRY S.
FIELDS, WENDY FIELDS,
SHAWN MOORE, and DAGMAR MOORE,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 8:19-cv-1473-VMC-MRM

TOWN OF REDINGTON BEACH,

Defendant.
______________________________/

PAMELA GREACEN and
ARTHUR L. BUSER, JR.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 8:20-cv-2568-VMC-MRM

TOWN OF REDINGTON BEACH,

Defendant.
______________________________/

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of
Plaintiffs Shawn Buending, Robert Dohmen, Thomas K. Brown,
Harry S. Fields, Wendy Fields, Shawn Moore, Dagmar Moore,
Pamela Greacen, and Arthur L. Buser, Jr.’s Motion to Stay
Case (Doc. # 150 (19-cv-1473); Doc. # 77 (20-cv-2568)), filed
on February 9, 2023. Defendant Town of Redington Beach
responded on February 13, 2023. (Doc. # 151 (19-cv-1473);
Doc. # 78 (20-cv-2568)). For the reasons that follow, the
Motion is granted.
Discussion
A district court has “broad discretion to stay
proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own
docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997)(citing
Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Deciding
whether to stay a case “calls for the exercise of judgment,

which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even
balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55.
This Court considers “several factors when evaluating a
request for a stay, including prejudice to the non-moving
party, whether the requested stay would simplify and clarify
the issues, and whether the potential stay would reduce the
burden of litigation on the parties and on the court.”
Mackiewicz v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 6:15-cv-465-GKS-
GJK, 2015 WL 11983233, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2015)(citing
Freedom Sci., Inc. v. Enhanced Vision Sys., No. 8:11-cv-1194-
CEH-AEP, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11410, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan.
21, 2012)).

The Plaintiffs move to stay this case pending rulings
from two Florida appellate courts in related cases
challenging the state’s customary use doctrine. (Doc. # 150
at 6). In the matter of Dirty Duck 16004 LLC et al v. Town of
Redington Beach, Case No. 2D23-251, currently pending before
Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal, owners of
beachfront property have sued Redington Beach claiming the
same customary use ordinance at issue in the instant case is
invalid. (Id. at 2). In the matter of Northshore Holdings,
LLC et al v. Walton County, Florida, Case No. 1D22-0895,
currently pending before Florida’s First District Court of

Appeal, owners of beachfront property in Walton County
challenge the existence of customary use doctrine in Florida,
arguing among other things that it was never adopted as a
background principle of Florida law. (Id. at 3).
The Plaintiffs argue that a stay is appropriate because
rulings in the state appellate cases could invalidate
Redington Beach’s customary use ordinance challenged here.
(Id. at 9). Both cases, according to the Plaintiffs, are
likely to resolve unsettled issues of state law relevant to
this case. (Id. at 9-11).
Plaintiffs further argue that Redington Beach will
suffer no prejudice from the stay because Redington Beach’s

ordinance will remain in effect during the stay. (Id. at 12).
Regarding the Court’s interests, Plaintiffs insist that a
stay will promote judicial economy by likely simplifying the
issues to be tried in this case and avoiding the potential
for inconsistent rulings on state law. (Id.). Redington Beach
opposes a stay, chiefly because it believes the state
appellate cases might not resolve all the issues in this case.
(Doc. # 151 at 3-8).
The Court concludes that a stay pending resolution of
the two state appellate cases would promote judicial economy.
A district court may “stay a case pending the resolution of

related proceedings in another forum.” Ortega Trujillo v.
Conover & Co. Commc’ns, 221 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2000).
The subject matter of the state appellate cases is directly
related to the cases in front of this Court, and both have
the potential to resolve relevant, unsettled issues of
Florida law.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) Plaintiffs Shawn Buending, Robert Dohmen, Thomas K.
Brown, Harry S. Fields, Wendy Fields, Shawn Moore,
Dagmar Moore, Pamela Greacen, and Arthur L. Buser, Jr.’s
Motion to Stay Case (Doc. # 150 (19-cv-1473); Doc. # 77

(20-cv-2568)) is GRANTED.
(2) The case is stayed until further order of the Court.
(3) The Clerk is directed to stay and administratively close
this case.
(4) The Plaintiffs are directed to immediately notify the
Court upon the resolution of the Dirty Duck 16004 LLC et
al v. Town of Redington Beach case in the Second District
Court of Appeal, including the entry of any substantive
order or opinion.
(5) The Plaintiffs are directed to immediately notify the
Court upon the resolution of the Northshore Holdings,
LLC et al v. Walton County, Florida case in the First
District Court of Appeal, including the entry of any
substantive order or opinion.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
27th day of February, 2023.

VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ’COVINGTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10112193. Public record. Not legal advice.