Prieto v. US Bank National Association

Filing 18

ORDER denying 13 Motion to Transfer Venue, signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 9/9/09. The parties shall explain in a brief, filed within ten days of the date on which this order is filed, why it is necessary for this action to continue pen ding in light of the earlier filed action in the Central District, and why this action should not be dismissed under the first to file rule, a recognized doctrine of federal comity that allows a district court to decline jurisdiction over a matter if a complaint [involving the same parties and issues] has already been filed in another district. (Kastilahn, A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 On July 7, 2009, Plaintiff Dolores Prieto ("Prieto") filed a 19 motion in which she seeks to transfer venue of this case to the 20 Central District of California ("Central District"), where it appears 21 an earlier-filed, identical putative class action is pending. 22 pending action, Williams v. U.S. Bancorp, filed on December 1, 2008, 23 "seeks to certify a class of former and current U.S. Bank Branch 24 Managers," which is exactly what Prieto seeks in this action, filed on 25 April 1, 2009. (Pl.'s Mot. 2:5-8.) 26 27 28 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. R. 78-230(h). 1
*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOLORES PRIETO, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANK National Association, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

2:09-cv-00901-GEB-KJM ORDER*

The

Prieto and the Williams Plaintiff

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

both "allege that Defendant misclassified putative class members as exempt employees, and now owe back wages, penalties, and interest for violations under the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code." (Pl.'s Mot. 2:8-10.) Since the Williams case

was filed before Prieto filed her case and the Williams Plaintiff seeks the same class certification that Prieto seeks, it is unclear why Prieto's case is necessary in light of the pendency of the Williams case. Since this issue has not been discussed, the motion to

transfer venue is denied. The parties shall explain in a brief, filed within ten days of the date on which this order is filed, why it is necessary for this action to continue pending in light of the earlier filed action in the Central District, and why this action should not be dismissed under the "first to file" rule, a recognized doctrine of federal comity that allows a district court to "decline jurisdiction over a matter if a complaint [involving the same parties and issues] has already been filed in another district." Church of Scientology of California v. United States Department of the Army, 611 F.2d 738, 749 (9th Cir. 1979). Dated: September 9, 2009

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

2