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)

Download PDF
1 WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Ed E. Alonzo, No. 17-CV-00836-PHX-JJT Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Akal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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?