Wiley, Jr. et al v. CJ Berry Well Services Management, LLC

Filing 10

ORDER STAYING ACTION 5 Pending Ruling on Motions to Compel Arbitration in Separate Actions signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 09/25/2024. (Boren, Cori)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THEODIS WILEY, et al. Case No. 1:24-cv-00756-JLT-CDB 12 ORDER STAYING ACTION PENDING RULING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION IN SEPARATE ACTIONS 13 Plaintiff, v. 14 CJ BERRY WELL SERVICES MANAGEMENT LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 (Doc. 5) 17 18 On May 24, 2024, Plaintiffs Theodis Wiley, Jr. (“Wiley”), David Edwards, and Derrick 19 Massey (“Plaintiffs”) filed a putative wage and hour class action complaint in Kern County 20 Superior Court against Defendant CJ Berry Well Services Management LLC (“Defendant”). 21 (Doc. 1). Defendant removed the action to this Court on June 28, 2024. Id. That same day, 22 Defendant filed a notice of related cases, asserting that Leland Browden v. CJ Berry Well 23 Services Management LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00418-JLT-CDB (“Browden”) is related to the instant 24 action. (Doc. 1-6). On July 22, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to compel individual arbitration 25 of plaintiff’s claims and stay proceedings pending completion of arbitration in Browden. 26 (Browden, Doc. 7). 27 Separately, in March 2024, and April 2024, Plaintiff Wiley and Matthew Bergeron filed 28 separate actions in Kern County Superior Court against Defendant in this action and Berry 1 1 Petroleum Company LLC (“BPC”) for alleged discrimination, wrongful termination, and 2 intentional infliction of emotional distress. Wiley v. Berry Petroleum Company, LLC et al., No. 3 1:24-cv-00553-CDB, Doc. 1 (“Wiley I”); Matthew Bergeron v. Berry Petroleum Company, LLC, 4 et al., No. 1:24-cv-00503-CDB, Doc. 1 (“Bergeron”). Thereafter, Defendant and BPC removed 5 Wiley I and Bergeron to this Court. Id. On July 9, 2024, Defendant and BPC filed a motion to 6 compel individual arbitration of plaintiff’s claims and stay proceedings pending completion of 7 arbitration. (Bergeron, Doc. 6). 8 On June 20, 2024, the parties in Wiley I filed a stipulated request to stay discovery 9 pending resolution of the motion to compel arbitration filed in Bergeron. (Wiley I, Doc. 3). The 10 parties noted the arbitration agreement at issue in Bergeron was identical to the one at issue in 11 Wiley I. Id. at 3. The parties represented that the outcome of the motion in Bergeron may moot 12 the need for a motion to compel arbitration in Wiley I or, at minimum, narrow certain issues 13 pertaining to any motion to compel arbitration that Plaintiff Wiley could file. Id. On June 24, 14 2024, the Court issued an order staying Wiley I pending the Court’s ruling on the motion to 15 compel arbitration in Bergeron. (Wiley I, Doc. 4). 16 On September 17, 2024, the parties to this action filed a joint Rule 26(f) report. (Doc. 5). 17 Defendant asserted that the arbitration agreement at issue in this case is identical to the 18 arbitration agreements at issue in Browden, Wiley I, and Bergeron. Id. at 4. Defendant requests 19 the Court stay all further proceedings in this action, including discovery, pending the outcome 20 “of one (or both) of [the motions to compel arbitration].” Id. Plaintiff notes that in the interest 21 of “judicial economy,” it agrees to Defendant’s position to stay this action pending the results of 22 the motions to compel arbitration in Browden and Bergeron. Id. 23 Accordingly, in light of the parties’ representations and good cause appearing, IT IS 24 HEREBY ORDERED: 25 26 1. This action is STAYED pending the Court’s ruling on the motions to compel arbitration in the Browden and Bergeron actions; and 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 2 2. The scheduling conference set for September 27, 2024, is VACATED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: September 25, 2024 ___________________ 4 _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?