GALLEGO v. PEREZ et al

Filing 69

ORDER granting 67 Renewed Motion to Stay Case and to Vacate or Suspend Scheduling Order. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 10/8/2021. See attached document for full details. (jao)

Case 1:20-cv-24374-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2021 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 20-cv-24374-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
MARGLLI GALLEGO,
Plaintiff,
v.
IVETTE PEREZ, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER STAYING CASE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants’1 Renewed Motion to Stay Case and
to Vacate or Suspend Scheduling Order, ECF No. [67] (“Motion”), filed on September 23, 2021.
On September 20, 2021, Defendants Ivette Perez and Carlos Luffi filed a Notice of Appeal, ECF
No. [65], contesting the Court’s Order denying their motion to dismiss based on qualified
immunity, ECF No. [61]. Defendants now request that the Court suspend all deadlines and
obligations set forth in the Scheduling Order, ECF No. [62], pending the issuance of the mandate
in Appeal No. 21-13212-HH (the “Appeal”). Plaintiff Marglli Gallego (“Plaintiff”) had the
opportunity to respond to the Motion but has failed to do so. Accordingly, the Motion is ripe for
the Court’s consideration.
Upon review, the Court agrees that a stay of all proceedings pending the resolution of the
Appeal is appropriate under the circumstances. Specifically, because the claims against Officers
Escobar and Garcia are inextricably intertwined with the claims against Officers Perez and Luffi,
a stay of all proceedings pending the Appeal will not only conserve judicial resources, but will

1

Officers Ivette Perez, Carlos Luffi, Ricky Garcia, and Flavio Escobar are collectively referred to as
“Defendants.”

Case 1:20-cv-24374-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2021 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 20-cv-24374-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
also ensure that Officers Perez and Luffi are free from the burdens of litigation until their immunity
defense is resolved. See Blinco v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 366 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir.
2004) (“[S]ubjecting officials to trial, traditional discovery, or both concerning acts for which they
are likely immune undercuts the protection from government disruption which official immunity
is supposed to afford.” (quoting Elliott v. Perez, 751 F.2d 1472, 1478 (5th Cir. 1985))); see also
Sosa v. Hames, No. 05-23079-CIV, 2006 WL 1284927, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 3, 2006) (staying
proceedings pending interlocutory appeal on the issue of qualified immunity “in the interest of
conserving the parties’ and judicial resources”).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Motion, ECF No. [67], is GRANTED.
2. This case is STAYED pending this issuance of the mandate in Appeal No. 2113212-HH that is currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.
3. The Court will enter an amended scheduling order following disposition of the
Appeal.
4. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case for administrative purposes only.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on October 8, 2021.

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

2