Johnston v. Macpherson Oil Company LLC

Filing 24

ORDER ON STIPULATION STAYING ACTION AND ALL DATES PENDING RESOLUTION OF RELATED LAWSUIT; ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO FILE A JOINT REPORT, signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 5/13/2024. Joint Report due within 180 days. (Lopez Amador, Corina)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CECIL JOHNSTON, individually and for
all others similarly situated,

12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
MACPHERSON OIL COMPANY LLC.
15
Defendant.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01023-JLT-CDB
ORDER ON STIPULATION STAYING
ACTION AND ALL DATES PENDING
RESOLUTION OF RELATED LAWSUIT
ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO FILE
A JOINT REPORT
(Doc. 23)

16
17
18
19

On July 7, 2023, Plaintiff Cecil Johnston initiated this action with the filing of a complaint

20

on behalf of himself and a putative class against Defendant Macpherson Oil Company LLC for

21

various alleged violations of the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare

22

Commission Wage Orders. (Doc. 1). The operative class certification scheduling order setting

23

case management dates was entered December 6, 2023. (Doc. 18). On May 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed

24

a notice of intent not to pursue class certification but reserves his right to pursue his claims under

25

the Fair Labor Standard Act as a putative collective action. (Doc. 21).

26

Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated request to stay the case pending

27

completion of a parallel proceeding. (Doc. 23). The parties represent that, on January 29, 2024,

28

Plaintiff filed a complaint against a certain “Driltek” in Kern County Superior Court asserting

1

claims for: (1) failure to pay overtime; (2) failure to authorize and permit and/or make available

2

rest and meal periods; (3) failure to provide timely and accurate wage statements; (4) waiting time

3

penalties; (5) failure to provide employee records; and (6) unlawful business practices (hereinafter,

4

the ”Driltek matter”). The parties further represent that a stay is appropriate because there is a risk

5

that this Court and the Kern County Superior Court will issue inconsistent rulings, issues

6

concerning California law predominate in both suits (which raise comity concerns favoring a stay),

7

and that the identical claims would produce judicial inefficiencies in the two separate forums. (Doc.

8

22 ⁋5).

9
10
11

Based on the parties’ representations in the stipulation and for good cause shown therein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

12
13

resolution of the Driltek matter.
2.

14
15

All case management dates and matters related thereto are hereby STAYED pending

The parties shall file a joint report informing the Court of the status of the “Driltek”
matter every 180 days from the date of issuance of this issuance of this order; and

3.

Within 14 days of the resolution of the Driltek matter, the parties shall file a joint

16

notice informing the Court the Driltek matter has been resolved and describing the

17

parties’ intentions with respect to the disposition or continued pursuit of this case.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
Dated:
20

May 13, 2024

___________________

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2