Guzman v. Veraz Services LLC et al

Filing 25

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants Motion to Consolidate. (Doc. 17 .) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to consolidate this action with Garcia v. Veraz Services, LLC, et al., No. 2:22-cv-00515-MHB, before this Court. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge Susan M Brnovich on 8/1/2022. (Associated Cases: 2:22-cv-00507-SMB, 2:22-cv-00515-MHB) (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Andrea Guzman,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

Veraz Services LLC, et al.,

13

No. CV-22-00507-PHX-SMB
ORDER

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate (the “Motion”).

16

(Doc. 17.) Plaintiff, Andrea Guzman, filed a Response in which she opposed Defendants’

17

Motion to Consolidate. (Doc. 19.) Defendants replied. (Doc. 20.) Also pending before

18

the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants’ Reply in Support of the

19

Motion to Consolidate. (Doc. 21.) The Court has considered the pleadings and relevant

20

law and will now grant Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate and deny Plaintiff’s Motion to

21

Strike for the reasons explained below.

22

I.

BACKGROUND

23

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendants own and/or operate Amigo Check

24

Cashing in Maricopa County, Arizona. (Doc. 1 ¶ 26.) Plaintiff worked for Defendants

25

from March 2020 through December 2020. (Id. ¶¶ 27–28.) Plaintiff alleges that she

26

worked 45–55 hours per week, but that Defendants would stop recording Plaintiff’s time

27

and pay her in cash when she reached 40 hours in a given week. (Id. ¶ 31–33.) Plaintiff

28

also alleges that Defendants failed to pay her for her final week of work. (Id. ¶¶ 36–38.)

1

Plaintiff brings three employment claims against Defendants: a claim under the Fair

2

Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for the failure to pay overtime (Count I), a claim under the

3

FLSA for the failure to pay minimum wage (Count II), and a claim under the Arizona

4

Minimum Wage Act (“AMWA”) for the failure to pay minimum wages (Count III).

5

Elena Uribe Garcia’s case, which was filed on the same day as this case, Garcia v.

6

Veraz Services, LLC, et al., No. 2:22-cv-00515-MHB, brings similar allegations against

7

the exact same Defendants in this case.1 Her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges

8

that she was hired in January 2019 and worked for Defendants through March 2021. (No.

9

2:22-cv-00515-MHB, Doc. 20 ¶ 24.) Ms. Garcia alleges that she worked approximately

10

45–55 hours per week, but Defendants did not pay her overtime pay. (Id. ¶¶ 30–36.)

11

Instead, she alleges that when she had worked 40 hours in a given week, Defendants would

12

stop recording her time and would instead pay her at her regular rate in cash for time spent

13

in excess of 40 hours per workweek. (Id. ¶ 37.) Ms. Garcia’s brings one claim for failure

14

to pay overtime under the FLSA. (Id. ¶¶ 50–58.)

15

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

16

“If actions before the court involve common questions of law or fact, the court may:

17

(1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the

18

actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

19

42(a). A district court has “broad discretion” to consolidate complaints pending in the

20

same district. Garity v. APWU Nat’l Lab. Org., 828 F.3d 848, 855–56 (9th Cir. 2016)

21

(quoting Inv’rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777

22

(9th Cir. 1989)). Local Rule 42.1 governs the transfer or consolidation of cases in the

23

District of Arizona. It permits a party to file a motion to transfer the case to a single judge

24

on the grounds that the cases:

25
(1) arise from substantially the same transaction or event; (2) involve
substantially the same parties or property; (3) involve the same patent,
trademark, or copyright; (4) call for determination of substantially the same

26
27
28
1

Ms. Garcia is also represented by Plaintiff’s counsel in this case.
-2-

1

questions of law; or (5) for any other reason [sic] would entail substantial
duplication of labor if heard by different Judges.

2
3
4

LRCiv 42.1(a).
III.

DISCUSSION

5

A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike

6

Ms. Guzman filed a Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants’ Reply, (Doc. 21),

7

arguing that Defendants’ Reply raises arguments not addressed in Plaintiff’s Response to

8

Defendants’ Motion to consolidate and are additionally irrelevant.

9
10

Rule 12(f) allows a court—either on its own or by motion—to “strike from a
pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous

11

matter.” “While determination to strike is in the discretion of the trial court, a motion to

12

strike ‘should not be granted unless it is clear that the matter to be stricken could have no

13

possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation.’” Vesecky v. Matthews (Mill Towne

14
15

Ctr.) Real Est., LLC, No. CV-09-1741-PHX-JAT, 2010 WL 749636, at *1 (D. Ariz. Mar.
2, 2010) (quoting Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 759 F. Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal.

16

1991)). “Motions to strike are generally disfavored because they are often used as delaying

17

tactics and because of the limited importance of pleadings in federal practice.” Johnson v.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Proctorio Inc., No. CV-21-00691-PHX-DLR, 2022 WL 621766, at *1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 3,
2022) (quoting Contrina v. Goya Foods, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 3d 1774, 1182 (S.D. Cal. Mar.
19, 2015)). The proponent of a motion to strike bears the burden of persuasion. Id. Courts
generally will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a motion to strike. Madsen
v. City of Phoenix, No. CV-19-03182-PHX-GMS, 2020 WL 5057652, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug.
27, 2020).
The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike.

In Defendants’ Motion to

Consolidate, Defendants raised the issue that Plaintiff’s counsel could potentially collect
more legal fees by filing two separate lawsuits rather than consolidating the suits, which
would be more cost-effective. (Doc. 17 at 2.) Plaintiff failed to respond to that argument
in her Response. (See Doc. 19.) In their Reply, Defendants again raised the concern that
-3-

1

“Plaintiffs’ counsel is abusing the federal legal process to garner greater fees[] by

2

unnecessarily expanding this litigation rather than seeking an efficient and less costly

3

management of these Actions.” (Doc. 20 at 2.) In other words, Defendants’ argument was

4

not raised for the first time in Defendants’ Reply. Rather, the argument was raised in

5

Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate, and it was Plaintiff who failed to adequately respond

6

to it in her Response. Thus, Plaintiff is incorrect that this argument was raised for the first

7

time in Defendants’ Reply, and the Court must deny Plaintiff’s attempt to strike these

8

arguments now.
B. Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate

9
10

Defendants have made a compelling case for consolidation. The cases arise from

11

substantially the same events. Both Ms. Guzman and Ms. Garcia worked for Defendants

12

during roughly the same time period. Even though Ms. Garcia is alleged to have worked

13

for Defendants for a slightly longer time period, the two plaintiffs’ dates of employment

14

overlap with one another. Apart from the plaintiffs, who are different, the cases involve

15

the exact same defendants.

16

substantially the same question of law; both cases involve nearly identical allegations for

17

unpaid overtime under the FLSA. Despite the fact that Ms. Guzman brings additional

18

claims not brought by Ms. Garcia, the cases both arise out of alleged employment

19

violations by Defendants. The Court finds that consolidation of the cases before this Court

20

will promote judicial efficiency. Accordingly, the Court orders that Ms. Garcia’s case be

21

transferred to this Court and the cases be consolidated.

22

IV.

Furthermore, the cases call for the courts to address

CONCLUSION

23

Accordingly,

24

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate. (Doc. 17.)

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

-4-

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to consolidate this

2

action with Garcia v. Veraz Services, LLC, et al., No. 2:22-cv-00515-MHB, before this

3

Court.

4

Dated this 1st day of August, 2022.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5-