Filiberto Martinez v. Darden Restaurants, Inc. et al

Filing 21

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS)FINAL RULING ON MOTION TO REMAND by Judge George H. Wu: The Court would DENY Plaintiffs Motion to Remand because the Sommer action precludes the application of the local controversy exception, and for the other reasons stated in the Courts Tentative Ruling, see Docket No. 19. Defendants Motion to Compel Arbitration is hereby set for hearing on Monday, August 10, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. 13 . (pj)

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

Date

CV 15-3434-GW(GJSx)

Title Filiberto Martinez v. Darden Restaurants, Inc,. et al.
Present: The Honorable

July 22, 2015
Page

1 of 4

GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Javier Gonzalez
Deputy Clerk

None Present
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)

None Present

None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) – FINAL RULING ON MOTION TO REMAND [13]
Filiberto Martinez (“Plaintiff”) originally filed this action in state court in California on
March 2, 2015, but Defendants1 removed it to this Court on May 7, 2015, asserting diversity
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). See generally Notice of Removal,
Docket No. 1. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand. See Mot. for
Remand (“Mot.”) at 2:3-11, Docket No. 13. Plaintiff alleges that CAFA’s “local controversy”
exception applies to this action and mandates remand. Id. Defendants contend that the local
controversy exception does not apply because (1) YH LLC’s alleged conduct does not form a
significant basis of relief and significant relief cannot be sought against YH LLC, and (2) there is
a similar class action pending against Defendants, i.e. Sommer v. Darden Restaurant, Superior
Court County of Orange, Case No. 30-2014-00720139-CU-OE-CXC.

See Opp’n to Mot.

(“Opp’n”) at 4:3-12, Docket No. 17. At the hearing on July 6, 2015, the Court requested a joint
supplemental brief addressing issues related to the local controversy exception, particularly
regarding whether the Sommer action currently pending in state court precludes the application
of the exception, thereby requiring that this Court maintain jurisdiction and deny Plaintiff’s
Motion to Remand.
II. Discussion
The local controversy exception requires that “during the 3-year period preceding the
1

“Defendants” are Darden Restaurants, Inc. (“Darden”); GMRI, Inc. (“GMRI”); Yard House USA, Inc.
(“YH USA”); and Yard House Northridge, LLC (“YH LLC”).
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk JG

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

CV 15-3434-GW(GJSx)

Title Filiberto Martinez v. Darden Restaurants, Inc,. et al.

Date

July 22, 2015
Page

2 of 4

filing of that class action, no other class action has been filed asserting the same or similar
factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons.”

28

U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(ii). The parties have indicated that Sommer was filed within this threeyear period, on April 29, 2014, in the Orange County Superior Court. See Joint Supp’l Br.
(“Supp’l Br.”) at 1:9-12, Docket No. 20. As such, the only outstanding issue with respect to this
prong of the local controversy exception is whether Sommer, which is pending in state court, was
a “class action” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(ii). As explained by the Third
Circuit:
CAFA does not define what constitutes an “other class action”
other than to limit it to filed cases asserting similar factual
allegations against a defendant. The goals of the statute, however,
provide guidance. In enacting CAFA, Congress recognized the
benefits of having one federal forum to adjudicate multiple cases
filed in various courts against a defendant.
Vodenichar v. Halcon Energy Props., Inc., 733 F.3d 497, 508 (3d Cir. 2013).

The Court

previously indicated that if Sommer is proceeding in state court, then there appears little
justification to maintain jurisdiction over the present action in this Court because doing so would
not provide “one federal forum” to adjudicate the various cases. See Tentative Ruling at 9,
Docket No. 19 (citing King v. Mueller, No. 3:14-1641, 2015 WL 1345174, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Mar.
25, 2015) (indicating that two similar putative class actions filed in state court, one of which was
removed to federal court, were “not multiple class actions as contemplate[d] by Congress” and
that “[t]o deny the remand . . . would be to directly frustrate the purpose of [the local
controversy] exception”)).
In the Joint Supplemental Brief, Plaintiff essentially concurs with the Court’s initial
thoughts as set forth in its Tentative Ruling, citing to Vodenichar and King for the proposition
that denying remand would frustrate the purpose of the local controversy exception. See Supp’l
Br. at 5:15-7:5. Although the reasoning of these cases is persuasive, neither is binding on this
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk JG

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

CV 15-3434-GW(GJSx)

Title Filiberto Martinez v. Darden Restaurants, Inc,. et al.

Date

July 22, 2015
Page

3 of 4

Court.
Moreover, Defendants contend that while the Third Circuit in Vodenichar found that
another class action was not an “other class action” for CAFA purposes, the factual
circumstances in that case were different and do not compel a finding that Sommer is not an
“other class action.” See id. at 9:10-10:6. There, a putative class action was filed in district court
pursuant to diversity jurisdiction, but voluntarily dismissed and re-filed in state court with
additional non-diverse defendants. See Vodenichar, 733 F.3d at 509. The second complaint was
nearly identical but for the newly added defendants. See id. The defendants then removed the
action to district court, and the plaintiffs sought remand. See id. at 502. The court concluded
that because the second action was essentially a continuation of the first, the first action was not
an “other class action” and the local controversy exception did not apply. See id. at 509-10.
Here, on the other hand, the Martinez and Sommer actions are two distinct actions with no
relation to each other apart from the fact that the plaintiffs and factual allegations are similar.
In addition, Defendants note that 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(B) defines a class action as “any
civil action filed under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or similar State statute or
rule of judicial procedure authorizing an action to be brought by 1 or more representative persons
as a class action.” See Supp’l Br. at 10:7-14. Sommer involves “both a collective Fair Labor
Standards Act claim pursuant to Rule 23 and state law class claims under the Labor Code
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382.” See id. at 10:15-21 (emphasis in original). As
such, it falls within the definition of a “class action” provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(B).
Lastly, Defendants direct the Court to Flores v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. CV-07-5326FMC (Ex) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2009), filed as Docket No. 20-2 in this action. In Flores, the court
found that a previously filed state court action alleging similar claims against one of the
defendants within the prior three-year period precluded the application of the local controversy
exception. See Docket No. 20-2 at 8:7-10:10.
The Court has considered the parties’ various arguments and concludes Sommer is an
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk JG

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

CV 15-3434-GW(GJSx)

Title Filiberto Martinez v. Darden Restaurants, Inc,. et al.

Date

July 22, 2015
Page

4 of 4

“other class action” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(ii). Thus, Plaintiff has not
satisfied its burden to prove that the local controversy exception applies. See Mondragon v.
Capital One Auto Fin., 736 F.3d 880, 881 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Plaintiff . . . , as the party seeking
remand to state court, bears the burden of proving that the [local controversy] exception
applies.”).
III. Conclusion
The Court would DENY Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand because the Sommer action
precludes the application of the local controversy exception, and for the other reasons stated in
the Court’s Tentative Ruling, see Docket No. 19. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is
hereby set for hearing on Monday, August 10, 2015 at 8:30 a.m.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk JG