Castillo v. ADT, LLC

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 7/28/15 ORDERING that defendant's 21 MOTION to DISMISS is DENIED. Defendant shall have an additional 30 days to respond to pending interrogatories. Parties may submit a stipulation for the court's approval to modify the scheduling order accordingly. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo----

11
12
13
14

RICARDO CASTILLO,
individually and on behalf of
all others similarly
situated,

CIV. NO. 2:15-383 WBS DAD
ORDER

Plaintiff,

15
16
17

v.
ADT LLC and DOES 1-100,
inclusive,

18
19

Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

----oo0oo---Plaintiff Ricardo Castillo brought this action against
defendant ADT LLC (“ADT”) on behalf of similarly situated
employees alleging failure to pay overtime, to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, and to reimburse employees for workrelated expenses in violation of California labor law.
Compl. (Docket No. 1).)

(See

Defendant filed this motion to dismiss

or stay the action, upon the ground that the present action is

28
1

1

“substantially duplicative” of an earlier filed related action,

2

Garnett v. ADT LLC, Civ. No. 2:14-2851 WBS DAD (E.D. Cal. filed

3

Dec. 5, 2014) (“Garnett”).

4

2)); see Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688

5

(9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds

6

by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008) (“[T]he district

7

court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-

8

filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of the

9

previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding

10
11

(Def.’s Mem. at 1:2-3 (Docket No. 21-

with it, or to consolidate both actions.”).
At the hearing, defendant appeared to shift positions

12

to request only an extension of time to respond to pending

13

interrogatories, in order to allow for sufficient time to prepare

14

for a mediation in the Garnett action set for August 13, 2015.

15

The court finds this request reasonable and sees no reason why an

16

extension would prejudice plaintiff.

17

grant defendant a thirty-day extension of time to respond to the

18

pending interrogatories.

19

to modifying the scheduling order accordingly.

20

The court will therefore

The parties stated they would stipulate

Beyond that request, the court finds no basis for

21

granting defendant’s motion for a dismissal or stay.

Outright

22

dismissal of the present action is inappropriate because the

23

named plaintiff brings additional claims not asserted in Garnett.

24

Neither is a stay warranted, because the allegedly overlapping

25

wage-statement and reimbursement claims in Garnett and Castillo

26

involve different factual allegations and therefore do not arise

27

from the same transactional nucleus of fact and cannot be

28

“duplicative.”

See Adams, 487 F.3d at 689 (noting that the most
2

1

important consideration is whether the two suits arise from the

2

same transactional nucleus of fact); see, e.g., Padilla v.

3

Nevada, Civ. No. 3:07-00442 RAM, 2009 WL 656288, at *4 (D. Nev.

4

Mar. 11, 2009) (holding that two allegedly duplicative actions

5

are “factually distinct” and do not warrant dismissal because the

6

later-filed action “challenges an additional set of sanctions”

7

imposed on plaintiff, an inmate, and relies on a “broader set of

8

facts” than the earlier action).

9
10

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to
dismiss or stay be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall have an

12

additional thirty days to respond to pending interrogatories.

13

Parties may submit a stipulation for the court’s approval to

14

modify the scheduling order accordingly.

15

Dated:

July 28, 2015

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3