Allen et al v. OE Services, LLC

Filing 18

ORDER VACATING HEARING AND REFERRING MATTER FOR RELATED CASE DETERMINATION. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/1/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

No. C 13-2460 RS

STEPHANIE ALLEN and
ROSETTA STONE, LTD,

ORDER VACATING HEARING AND
REFERRING MATTER FOR
RELATED CASE DETERMINATION

Plaintiffs,
v.
OE SERVICES, LLC d/b/a OPEN
ENGLISH, LLC,

15
16

Defendant.
____________________________________/

17
18

Plaintiff Stephanie Allen was previously employed by defendant OE Services, LLC (“Open

19

English”). She and her current employer, Rosetta Stone, Ltd, filed this action in San Francisco

20

Superior Court in response to Open English’s attempt to enforce an alleged non-competition

21

agreement against her. After removing to this court, Open English moved to dismiss, arguing

22

among other things that Rosetta Stone, Allen, and another former Open English employee who is

23

now working for Rosetta Stone, have engaged in forum shopping and have created a “morass of

24

duplicative lawsuits in jurisdictions across the country, involving the same Open English

25

Employment Agreement.” The other lawsuits to which Old English points include Wilson v. OE

26

Services, LLC, 4:13-CV-01653-PJH, also originally filed in San Francisco Superior Court and

27

removed by Open English to this district.

28
1

NO. C 13‐2460 RS
ORDER

1

Although the claims for relief in Wilson are not identical to those asserted here, it similarly is

2

brought by Rosetta Stone and a former Old English employee seeking to establish the employee’s

3

right to work for Rosetta Stone. Additionally, Rosetta Stone, Allen, and the individual plaintiff in

4

Wilson are all defendants in an earlier-filed action in Florida brought by Old English involving the

5

same non-compete issues.

6

Under these circumstances, the parties were obligated by Civil Local 3-12(b) to file an

over the earlier-filed Wilson matter could make a determination whether this action should be

9

related thereto. In light of the fact that Old English expressly relied on the relationship among the

10

cases as a factor supporting its motion to dismiss or stay, its failure to comply with Rule 3-12(b) is

11
For the Northern District of California

Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related, so that the judge presiding

8

United States District Court

7

particularly puzzling.

12

The ultimate determination as to whether the matters are related within the meaning of Rule

13

3-12(a) is for the judge presiding in Wilson to make, and nothing in this order is intended to pre-

14

judge that question. To allow that decision to be made, however, the matter will be referred

15

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(c) to the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton. The hearing date for the

16

pending motion to dismiss or stay, and the motion to remand, are vacated. The date will be reset in

17

the event this action is not ordered related to Wilson. If the matters are found to be related, the

18

parties must renotice the motions after reassignment in accordance with the Local Rules or in such

19

manner as Judge Hamilton may direct.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated: 8/1/13

23

RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2

NO. C 13‐2460 RS
ORDER