Ortiz et al v. CVS Caremark Corporation et al

Filing 22

ORDER re 20 Notice (Other) filed by CVS Caremark Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 21 Response ( Non Motion ), filed by Gail Miller. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte on 5/31/2013. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ELIZABETH ORTIZ,
Plaintiff,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C -12-05859(EDL)

v.
CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION,
Defendant.

ORDER
/

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

On May 21, 2013, Defendant CVS filed a notice of pendency of other action, under Civil
Local Rule 3-13, which calls for a party to file a notice when it learns that its case "involves all or a
material part of the same subject matter and all or substantially all of the same parties as another
action which is pending in any other federal or state court." Civ. L.R. 3-13(a). Defendant’s notice
states that there is a potentially related case called Kimberly Murphy v. CVS Caremark Corporation,
LASC No. BC464785, pending in Superior Court in L.A. County. Both Murphy and this case are
putative class actions against CVS regarding off-the-clock security searches. CVS states that it
"does not believe that these lawsuits should be coordinated because each lawsuit contains nonoverlapping claims." Docket No. 20 at 1.
Local Rule 13-3 allows an opposing party to file a statement supporting or opposing the
Notice. Plaintiffs have filed an opposition, objecting to Defendant's delay in filing the Notice and
contending that Defendant must have known about Murphy long before it filed the Notice on May
21, 2013. Murphy was filed in state court in July of 2011; this case was filed in September of 2012.
Plaintiffs also state that they have discovered another similar case, Howard v. CVS Caremark
Corporation, LASC No. BC502899, also pending in L.A. County Superior Court, filed on March 14,

1

2013. Plaintiffs in Howard filed a statement of related case in Murphy on May 10, 2013. Docket

2

No. 21 at 4.

3

Plaintiffs state that the Murphy class certification motion, which was filed on January 25,

4

2013, seeks to certify claims of "all nonexempt employees in CVS stores since July 5, 2007, who

5

have been, are or will be subjected to security checks and/or labeling of their personal [property].”

6

Id. at 3, 4. Plaintiffs contend that the Murphy claims "directly overlap[]" with the claims in this

7

case, and there are approximately 50,000 non-exempt CVS employees who are putative class

8

members in this case who are directly affected by the certification motion in Murphy. Plaintiffs

9

argue that "given the large size of the classes represented in the present matter, Murphy v. CVS, and

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Howard v. CVS, and the significant overlap of common questions of law and fact that affect the

11

same group of individuals, these three cases should be coordinated to avoid conflicts, conserve

12

resources and promote an efficient determination of the actions." Id. at 5.

13

It is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant respond to Plaintiffs’ opposition by June 10, 2013,

14

in a brief of no more than five pages.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18
Date: May 31, 2013
19

_______________________________
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
Chief United State Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2