ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY STAY

GREG KAYS, Chief District Judge.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff Christina Moore's ("Moore") Motion for Stay (Doc. 8), Defendants' Response (Doc. 17), and Moore's Reply (Doc. 19). After careful review and consideration, the Court GRANTS Moore's Motion to Stay (Doc. 8) pending the Court's decision on her motion for remand.

This Court possesses "broad discretion to stay proceedings as incident to its power to control its own docket." See Burns v. EGS Fin. Care, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-06173, 2016 WL 7535365, at *1 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 12, 2016). Here, the Defendants do not oppose a stay. They agree that any delay caused by the stay will not harm or prejudice any party. Because of the early stage of this litigation and the parties' agreement that a stay will not cause harm or prejudice, the Court grants a stay pending a decision on Moore's motion for remand.

As a secondary issue, Moore argues that Defendants have failed to timely file reply suggestions to their motion to dismiss (Doc. 4). Moore argues that a stay of Defendants' reply briefing could lead to unnecessary delay. Moore's complaint contradicts her argument that in the event of a stay, "delay will not prejudice or harm any party." Pl's Suggestions in Supp. of Mot. to Stay, at 1-2 (Doc. 9). If the Court does not remand the case, Defendants will have 14 days following the Court's ruling to file reply suggestion in support of their motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.