Chissie v. Winco Foods, LLC et al

Filing 109

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/17/2018 ORDERING that the Court DECLINES to issue an order relating the cases. Defendant'srequest is DENIED without prejudice. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LESLIE ANN CHRISSIE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
WINCO FOODS, LLC; JOEL CLARK,

15
16
17

Defendants.
SHIRLEY JACO on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated,

20
21

No. 1:18-cv-00301-DAD-EPG

Plaintiff,

18
19

No. 2:09-cv-02915-MCE-CKD

v.
WINCO HOLDINGS, INC. and Does 1
through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.

22
23

On March 6, 2018, Defendant Winco Holdings, Inc. filed a Notice of Related Case

24

in the above captioned actions. ECF Nos. 108 and 3, respectively. The Notice attempts

25

to relate these cases based on its position that “both matters involve challenges to the

26

same policy in similar collective bargaining agreements” and both involve the question of

27

“whether plaintiff’s section 227.3 and related state-law claims are preempted by the

28

LMRA.” No party has filed an objection to the cases being related.
1

1

Local Rule 123(a) defines “Related Cases” as follows:

2

An action is related to another within the meaning of this Rule when

3

(1) both actions involve the same parties and are based on the same or a
similar claim;

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

(2) both actions involve the same property, transaction, or event;
(3) both actions involve similar questions of fact and the same questions of
law and their assignment to the same Judge or Magistrate Judge is likely to
effect a substantial savings of judicial effort, either because the same result
should follow in both actions or otherwise; or
(4) for any other reasons, it would entail substantial duplication of labor if
the actions were heard by different Judges or Magistrate Judges.
While the above captioned cases involve the same Defendant, the Plaintiffs in

11

each case are very different and claim very different factual premises for their respective

12

terminations. Moreover, the Chrissie action—which is now a closed matter—asserted

13

claims solely on behalf of Plaintiff Chrissie, whereas the pending Jaco action is a

14

purported class action. And even though both actions involve claims brought under

15

§ 227.3, Jaco brings distinct additional claims that do not overlap with those raised by

16

Chrissie. Lastly, the question of whether each state law claim is preempted is subject to

17

individual analysis, and so relating the actions based on Defendant’s preemption

18

argument is not prudent.

19

The Court therefore finds that the purposes underlying Local Rule 123(a)—

20

namely, avoiding substantial duplication of labor and conflicting decisions where the

21

same set of facts and law apply—are not present in these cases at this time.

22

Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to issue an order relating the cases. Defendant’s

23

request is DENIED without prejudice.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 17, 2018

26
27
28
2