Bustillos v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.

Filing 9

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO NOT RELATE CASES (jwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 In re Bimbo Bakeries FLSA Actions IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 05-00829 JW NO. C 08-3553 MEJ ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO NOT RELATE CASES / Presently before the Court is Defendants' Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related. (hereafter, "Motion," Docket Item No. 395.) Defendants contend that this action is not related under Civil Local Rule 3-12 to another action pending in the Northern District of California, Bustillos v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., Case No. 08-3553 MEJ. Pursuant to the requirements of Local Rule 3-12, Defendants filed this Motion upon learning that this action may be related to the Bustillos action. Cases are considered related when "(1) [t]he actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and (2) [i]t appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication and labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges." Civ. L.R. 3-12(a). This action is a putative class action based on wage and hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Bustillos action does contain wage and hour claims, but also involves gender and disability discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims that are not made by the putative class in this case. Further, the Bustillos wage and hour claims are factually tied to the individualized circumstances surrounding the plaintiff's discrimination claims.

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

In addition, counsel for Defendants contacted counsel for Plaintiffs in this action, as well as counsel for the plaintiff in the Bustillos action. Neither objected to Defendants' Motion, either in conversations with defense counsel, or in the form of a filed opposition with the Court. (Declaration of Wendy Lazerson in Support of Defendants' Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related ¶¶ 17-18, Docket Item No. 396.) Accordingly, the Court finds that these cases are not related under Local Rule 3-12. The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to not relate this action with the Bustillos action.

Dated: September 19, 2008

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Carolyn Blecha Hall [e-mail] Dennis Frank Moss [e-mail] Elizabeth Jean Carroll [e-mail] Joseph J. Gigliotti [e-mail] Joseph J. Gigliotti [e-mail] Katherine J. Odenbreit [e-mail] Kristen Pezone [e-mail] Michael James Walsh [e-mail] Michael Scott Langford [e-mail] Rebecca Sobie [e-mail] Robert Ira Spiro [e-mail] Rudolfo Ginez [e-mail] Rudolfo Ginez [e-mail] Wendy M. Lazerson [e-mail]

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: September 19, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy