Perez v. Leprino Foods Company et al

Filing 6

ORDER RELATING and REASSIGNING Case, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/23/17. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13
14
15
16

JOHN PEREZ and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals,

CASE NO. 1:17-CV-00686-DAD-SAB
ORDER RELATING AND
REASSIGNING CASE

Plaintiff,
LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a
Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO
FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS
COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation;
and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

17
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On November 15, 2013, Plaintiff Jerrod Finder (“Finder”) filed a wage and hour class
action against Leprino Foods Company and Leprino Foods Dairy Products Company
(collectively “Leprino”), alleging California Labor Code violations including failures to provide
a second meal break or accurate itemized statements, waiting time violations, Unfair Business
Practices Act violations, and Private Attorneys General Act claims based on those substantive
violations. On January 21, 2015, Jonathon Talavera (“Talavera”) filed a wage and hour class
action against Leprino, alleging, (1) claims relating to Leprino’s donning and doffing procedure
for required sanitary gear, (2) the same second meal period denial claim as Finder, and (3) claims
for failure to pay all hours worked, overtime, and wages upon termination (based on both (a) the
second meal period and rest period denials, and (b) the donning and doffing related claims). The
1

1 Court consolidated the two actions on November 21, 2016. Doc. 63. On January 20, 2017, the
2 Court stayed the consolidated action. Doc. 81.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

On April 13, 2017, counsel for Talavera filed Perez v. Leprino—a new putative class
action in Kings County Superior Court against Leprino, alleging claims that appear to be almost
identical to those alleged in the Talavera action. Perez v. Leprino, EDCA Case No. 1:17-cv00686-DAD-SAB, Doc. 1 at 11-32. That action was removed to this Court on May 18, 2017, and
assigned to District Judge Dale Drozd. Id. The following day, Leprino filed a notice of related
cases.
Local Rules provide that when a “Judge to whom the action with the lower or lowest
number has been assigned determines that assignment of the actions to a single Judge is likely to
effect a savings of judicial effort or other economies, that Judge is authorized to enter an order
reassigning all higher numbered related actions to himself or herself.” Local Rule 123(c). The
above-entitled action appears to involve similar questions of fact and law as Finder v. Leprino.
Assignment to the same judge is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort. See Local
Rule 123(a)(3). Because the undersigned is assigned the lowest numbered related case, all of the
above-entitled case are hereby reassigned from the dockets of District Judge Dale A. Drozd and
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone to the dockets of Senior District Judge Anthony Ishii and
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. The Clerk of the Court is also respectfully directed to
relate this action to Finder v. Leprino, Case No. 1:13-cv-02059-AWI-BAM.

20
21 IT IS SO ORDERED.
22 Dated: May 23, 2017
23

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2