Flores v. Red Robin

Filing 5

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissing Action as Duplicative re 1 Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/17/17. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MOSES FLORES, 12 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION AS DUPLICATIVE Plaintiff, 10 11 Case No. 1:17-cv-00595-DAD-SAB v. (ECF No. 1) RED ROBIN, OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff Moses Flores, a Nevada state prisoner, is appearing pro se in this action and is seeking relief pursuant to the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). In his complaint, Plaintiff states that he had already attempted to file this action but had not heard back so he is assuming that the case was lost in the mail. (Compl. 2, ECF No. 1.) The Court finds upon review of the Court’s records, that Plaintiff filed an action, Flores v. Red Robin, 1:17-cv-00396-LJO-SKO, on March 20, 2017 alleging similar violations of the Equal Pay Act. 21 A plaintiff generally has “no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same 22 subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.” Adams v. 23 California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled in part on other 24 25 26 27 grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (citing Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir.1977)). “After weighing the equities of the case, the district court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of the previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both 28 1 1 actions.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 688. In deciding whether the action is duplicative, the Court 2 examines whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the 3 action, are the same. Id. at 689. Here, Plaintiff brings the same cause of action against the same defendant based upon the 4 5 same facts that are presented in Flores v. Red Robin, 1:17-cv-00396-LJO-SKO. Plaintiff has 6 brought both actions against the same plaintiff, Red Robin and is seeking relief under the Equal 7 Pay Act. Finally, the Court finds that both of these actions share a common nucleus of facts. In 8 both actions, Plaintiff contends that he was hired as a line cook by the defendant and after 9 learning both stations was to take the position of a female employee. Plaintiff asserts that he was 10 not paid the same wage as the female employee who quit. The Court finds that these two actions 11 are duplicative and therefore, recommends that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED as 12 13 duplicative of the previously filed action, Flores v. Red Robin, 1:17-cv-00396-LJO-SKO. This findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 14 15 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen 16 (14) days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to these 17 findings and recommendations with the Court. Such a document should be captioned 18 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will 19 review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 21 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 22 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: May 17, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?