Alonzo v. Akal Security Incorporated

Filing 50

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED denying 40 Defendant's Motion for Temporary Stay of Proceedings. (See attached Order). Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 11/7/17.(JAMA)

1

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Ed E. Alonzo,

No. 17-CV-00836-PHX-JJT
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Akal Security, Inc.,

13

Defendant.

14
15

At issue is Defendant Akal Security, Inc.’s Motion for Temporary Stay of

16

Proceedings (Doc. 40), to which Plaintiff Ed E. Alonzo filed a Response (Doc. 45, Resp.)

17

and Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 46). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will

18

deny Defendant’s Motion for Temporary Stay.

19

Defendant requests that this Court stay the present action until the conclusion of a

20

trial for another case in the Southern District of Florida, Gelber v. Akal Security, Inc., No.

21

1:16-cv-23170-FAM. Defendant argues that because Gelber has the same defendant

22

company and is litigating claims similar to the types of claims in this case, the Court

23

should wait for the resolution of Gelber before proceeding here. In response, Plaintiff

24

contends that although Gelber presents similar issues, the facts of each case are

25

distinguishable and the resolution of one would not necessarily aid in the resolution of the

26

other. Plaintiff also ventilated serious concerns regarding the Southern District of

27

Florida’s ability to maintain its court schedule in the wake of Hurricane Irma. (Resp. at

28

3–4.)
1

1

Although Plaintiff does not cite any case law in support of its arguments, and the

2

Florida courts were up and running within days of the storm, the Court is not predisposed

3

to delaying this case. The facts of this case are undoubtedly different from the facts in

4

Gelber. For example, Plaintiff may perform different duties than the Gelber plaintiffs,

5

work different hours and different shifts, have superiors with different internal policies,

6

and so on. That the court in Gelber denied nationwide certification speaks in part to a

7

judgment that the circumstances for Akal employees in Florida are not the same as Akal

8

employees in, for example, Arizona. Therefore, a belief that a trial outcome in Gelber

9

will affect the merits or decisions in this case is misplaced.

10

This is especially true because any decision in the Southern District of Florida is

11

not binding on a case in the District of Arizona. Fellow district courts merely provide

12

persuasive authority to one another, and the Southern District of Florida applies the law

13

of the Eleventh Circuit, not the Ninth Circuit.

14
15
16

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion for Temporary
Stay of Proceedings (Doc. 40).
Dated this 7th day of November, 2017.

17
18
19

Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2