Court Opinion

ID: 9932075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:32:13.448426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:45.964248
License: Public Domain

Because the main opinion relies on Ex parte Speedee Cash of Alabama,Inc., 806 So.2d 389 (Ala. 2001), and because I disagree with SpeedeeCash, I concur only in the result of the main opinion. As a member of the Houston division of this Court, I did not participate in Speedee Cash, which was a See division decision. I do not agree that the competing class actions in Speedee Cash were similar or substantially similar. InSpeedee Cash the relief at issue in the first-filed class action was extremely limited, and the relief at issue in the second-filed class action was comprehensive. Therefore, the Speedee Cash decision to stay the second-filed class action during the pendency of the first-filed class action unjustly stymied the putative class plaintiffs in the second-filed class action. As only three Justices concurred in the holdings and rationale of Speedee Cash, it is not binding precedent. We should avoid reinforcing it.