ORDER

G.R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.

In this removed case, plaintiff claims that she was subjected to a wrongful foreclosure. (Doc. 1-1 at 10.) Defendants move to dismiss the case, contending that plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief. (Doc. 4.) Although that motion is not before the undersigned, defendants have also filed a motion to stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines pending the Court's ruling on the motion. (Doc. 5.) They insist that the motion to dismiss will extinguish all claims against them, so discovery costs will be wasted. (Id. at 1-3.) Plaintiff never responded to the motion, so it stands unopposed by operation of Local Rule 7.5.

Courts in this circuit have granted motions to stay discovery where the "resolution on the pending motion to dismiss may extinguish some or all of the claims . . . potentially restricting the scope of discovery significantly." White v. Georgia, 2007 WL 3170105 at *2 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 25) 2007); see also Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652-53 (M.D. Fla. 1997). After reviewing the dismissal motion here, the Court is satisfied that it has heft and may extinguish plaintiff's claims. Applying the principles found in Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997), defendants' request to stay discovery (doc. 5) is GRANTED. Should plaintiff's case survive the dismissal motion, the parties shall submit a proposed scheduling order within 14 days of the entry of the district judge's order.

SO ORDERED.