ORDER

SUSAN C. BUCKLEW, District Judge.

This Cause comes before the Court on Defendant Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra's Motion to Stay and Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to respond to the Complaint. Dkt. 10. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion to stay. Dkt. 11. For the reasons below, the Motion to Stay is granted.

The 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); see also Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1366-67 (11th Cir. 1997) (stating that district courts "enjoy broad discretion in deciding how to best manage the cases before them") (citation omitted).

After a review of the Motion to Stay and the response in opposition thereto, the Court determines that this action should be stayed. As Plaintiff concedes in her response, she fits the class definition in Lopez v. Dyck-O'Neal & Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, Case No. 8:15-cv-00571-36AEP, and in Cruz v. Dyck-O'Neal & Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, Case No. 9:15-cv-80261-WPD, but alleges entitlement to actual damages whereas the plaintiffs in those cases do not. Defendant Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra asks that this case be stayed "until such time as a class is certified and Plaintiff opts out, or until such time as class certification is denied." Dkt. 10 at 3.

The Court determines that due to the overlapping nature of these actions, the case shall be stayed until such time as a class is certified and Plaintiff opts out, or until such time as class certification is denied. Staying this case will promote judicial efficiency and avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings. Moreover, this stay is not of indefinite duration.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:

DONE AND ORDERED.