ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Third Party Defendant Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.'s Motion to Stay or Abate (Doc. #62) filed on August 20, 2015. Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs John M. Summers, Summers Gulf Management, LLC and Corkscrew Management, LLC filed a Response and Memorandum in Opposition to Third Party Defendant Becker & Poliakoff's Motion to Stay or Abate (Doc. #64) on August 31, 2015. This matter is ripe for review.

On April 24, 2015, Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs filed a two-count Third Party Complaint against Becker & Poliakoff. (Doc. #45). In Count I, Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs assert that Becker & Poliakoff committed legal malpractice while representing them in a commercial real estate transaction. In Count II, they seek contribution from Becker & Poliakoff under Florida Statute § 768.31, if Plaintiffs Stephanie Miller and Select Real Estate by Stephanie Miller Inc. prevail on their claims against Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs. Becker & Poliakoff answered the Third Party Complaint (Doc. #54), but they have now moved to stay the third-party action, arguing that the legal malpractice and contribution claims are not ripe. (Doc. #62 at 3).

A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings before it. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997). The power to say is "incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Economy of time and effort is best accomplished by the "exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance." Id. at 254-55.

As stated, the parties disagree about whether a stay is necessary. Third Party Defendant argues the legal malpractice and contribution claims against it are premature as they are predicated on the Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs being found liable on the original action. (Doc. #62). Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs, in turn, argue that they appropriately initiated the third-party action under Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a "defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it." (Doc. #64 at 4 (emphasis copied)).

Upon careful consideration, the Court finds that is in the interests of judicial economy to deny without prejudice Becker & Poliakoff's motion. Becker & Poliakoff answered the Third Party Complaint (Doc. #54) on June 8, 2015, and attended a mediation conference with Plaintiffs and Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs on July 29, 2015. (Doc. #59; Doc. #59-1). Since then, the Court granted the parties' request to attend a settlement conference with a United States Magistrate Judge and directed them to contact the Honorable Carol Mirando to make the necessary arrangements. As a result, the Court finds that staying the case at this juncture does not best serve the parties' and the Court's interests. If necessary, however, Becker & Poliakoff may file a second motion to stay after the settlement conference concludes.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

Third Party Defendant Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.'s Motion to Stay or Abate (Doc. #62) is DENIED without prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED.