It may be hard to imagine, but close your eyes and try. Ok, that didn't work because reading with your eyes closed is a feat for anyone. So, just imagine you have your eyes closed imagining that we could take a journey through the law and in the process look to Jackson Browne, Lisa Loeb, Rhianna, and Justin Beiber in one post. That is a pop-culture diversity that is tough to beat.
The thought came to mind recently when an order came across my desk. The assigned judge of compensation claims had ordered a "stay" in proceedings.
I have written about "stays" previously. See Can I Go or Should I Stay (May 2017). See also Statutory, Inherent, or Delegated Authority (July 2018); and Sanctions (January 2023). The analysis is essentially one in which parties ask themselves "what authority does the judge have in this instance?" Or, "what relief might I hope for."
Thc Florida Courts have been readily clear that judges of compensation claims don't have the authority to enter stays. Periodically, they do anyway. That reminds me of bumble bees, but that is for another day.
Fortunately, the music icons I note today may have educated us thoroughly on stays. Of course, some may not be listening (see bumblebees).
For Jackson Browne, it’s a longing. He is looking for acquiescence, and not too much. “… Oh won't you stay, Just a little bit longer,” (Jackson Browne, Stay, Asylum 1978)(many covers previous and since. The original was Maurice Williams and the Zodiacs, 1953). Nonetheless, the point from that perspective is pleading, longing, and emotional.
Rhiana reminds us that humans are likely to be influenced by their own desires. She concedes something beyond Jackson Browne's mere suggestion. She says "I want you to stay." (Rhiana, Stay, Def Jam 2012). She goes on to describe why her reaction is so tuned to her feelings. She says it is “Something in the way you move,” thus a persuasiveness, that “takes me all the way.” It is the motion, she says, that makes her want the stay.
The Beiber is less reserved. He is beyond wanting a stay. He, like many attorneys, has hit the wall and finds no apparent alternative. His is not a "want, but is instead a “need” He pleads “I need you to stay, need you to stay, hey," (Justin Beiber, Stay, Columbia 2021). Ever notice how hackneyed the "hey" has become?
Be it a want, a feeling, or a need, the lyrics of a stay in Florida workers compensation always is more Mick Jagger (not really "always," see above re the order crossing my desk and bumblebees). But Jagger is right, "you can't always get what you want" (Roling Stones, Let it Bleed, Decca, 1969). No matter how desperately you may want a stay, that is not in the JCC toolbox, and Mick might just tell you so.
Perhaps in this, the judge is more Lisa Loeb. She doesn’t seek the stay, but evaluates another’s request. “And you say, stay," Lisa Loeb, (Stay, RCA 1994). She is doubtful, resistant, and curious. She makes the point, perhaps, that just because someone says "stay," that does not mean the result will be "stay." She is contemplative, reflective, and introspective (shouldn't a judge be?). One does not, in that, merely acquiesce because she/he was asked. But, back to Mick and the boys:
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes, well, you might find
You get what you need
When a party is seeking to not proceed with this case, in this setting, today, there is usually some reason. It may be good, bad, or in between, but there is a reason. Two parallel paths are suggested.
First the "I can't" proceed. This is because of a bankruptcy stay, the circuit court stay, or similar. The parties have been ordered not to proceed, but the OJCC has not been so instructed. The party seeking the stay in this setting is asking the JCC to alleviate a "rock and a hard place" conundrum.
But that is not true. In these settings, the party actually only needs to ask the JCC to respect the other entities' stay. The party does not need a JCC stay, merely the JCC's acquiescence in an existing stay. That is called comity, and should not be a problem. JCCs jurisdiction is actually inferior to court jurisdictions. We need to follow court orders just like parties, but to do so we must be informed of them (file a motion?).
Then there is the "I don't want to" proceed. These are settings in which it is less Bieber and more Rhiana. But, there may well be a good reason to not proceed. The world of litigation is replete with a vast array of challenges and complications. What if you would like to better refine the evidence? What if an indispensable party has been identified and you want to seek their involvement? What if, what if.
The point is that whether you are Rhiana or Beiber, the courts have said that the JCC has no authority to enter a stay. Thus, the attorney may (1) make an argument that this is not true, that some authority or argument can be made, and seek a stay. Or, (2) may simply seek a continuance of the OJCC proceedings under the auspices of section 440.25.
Either a stay or continuance is a pause. Either affords the time to act, react, or recalibrate. Either accomplishes the goal of not proceeding today. And, between them, the continuance is more fully illustrated, and perhaps more obvious in the statute, rules, and practice?
Or, you can file your Rhiana (want) or Beiber (need) motion and let the assigned judge Loeb it. If you are lucky, the assigned judge might actually Love it instead and you will get your stay regardless of statutory authority. You never know what a judge doesn't know (hint, though, just because you push that past one unsuspecting or sympathetic JCC does not mean it will work with another).
That said, the continuance is the more likely path. Unless someone is giving you odds, bet on the continuance (but be prepared to demonstrate how the need is beyond your control).
If your issue is tied to some court, bankruptcy, appellate, etc., you might find life easier in simply asking that court for your stay, and then asking the JCC to deviate from all this music and proceed to comity (play on words, you work it out).