Mortaza Mohammad Noorzay et al v. Tatitlek Support Services Inc

Filing 48

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS)GRANTING IN PART Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings, and Strike1 42 by Judge Stephen V. Wilson: the reasons stated above, the Court STAYS this case pending resolution of the Nur action. The matter is moved to the Courts inactive calendar. The parties SHALL FILE a written notice with the Court when the matter should be restored to the active calendar. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (pj)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:14-cv-9923 SVW (JPRx)

Title

Noorzay et al. v. Tatitlek Support Services, Inc.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

June 22, 2015

STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Paul M. Cruz

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A

N/A

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS ORDER GRANTING IN PART Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative, to Stay
Proceedings, and Strike1 [42]

On March 10, 2015, this Court issued an order consolidating this action with the related Nur
action, designating the Noorzay complaint as the operative complaint, and ordering plaintiffs to show
cause why their claims (other than the Unfair Competition Law “unfair” prong claim) should not be
dismissed because Plaintiffs are independent contractors. (Dkt. 21: Ps’ Mem. P. & A., at 3.) On April
21, 2015, the Court granted the Nur Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and severed the Nur and
Noorzay actions. (Dkt. 37.) The Court also dismissed the Noorzay complaint and granted the Noorzay
plaintiffs leave to amend. (Id.) On May 5, 2015, the Noorzay plaintiffs filed their First Amendment
Complaint (“FAC”). (Dkt. 38.)
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ FAC or, in the alternative,
to stay proceedings pending resolution of the Nur action. (Dkt. 42.) Plaintiffs do not dispute that the
Noorzay action is the first filed action. Moreover, both cases involve substantially the same parties,
similar underlying facts, and similar legal issues. Finally, another related case—Abbas et al. v. Tatitlek
Support Services, Inc., has already been stayed pending resolution of the Nur action. The Court
therefore finds that the first-filed rule counsels staying the Noorzay action.2
1

Upon review of the parties' briefs, the Court concludes that the Motion is suitable for
determination without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Local Rule 7-15.
2

The Court notes that the parties spend much of their briefs arguing about whether counsel for
the Nur plaintiffs is disqualified and thus can’t serve as class counsel. The Court finds that
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

PMC
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:14-cv-9923 SVW (JPRx)

Date

Title

June 22, 2015

Noorzay et al. v. Tatitlek Support Services, Inc.

For the reasons stated above, the Court STAYS this case pending resolution of the Nur action.
The matter is moved to the Court’s inactive calendar. The parties SHALL FILE a written notice with
the Court when the matter should be restored to the active calendar.

Defendants did not act improperly by moving to stay this action while asserting in opposition to
the Nur motion for class certification that Nur’s proposed class counsel is disqualified. Moreover,
the Court does not here address the merits of Plaintiffs’ argument—i.e. whether counsel for the
Nur plaintiffs is disqualified.
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

PMC
Page 2 of 2