Allen et al v. OE Services, LLC

Filing 20

ORDER re Request for Related Case Determination. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 8/7/2013. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

NICOLE WILSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9

v.

ORDER RE REQUEST FOR RELATED
CASE DETERMINATION

OE SERVICES, LLC, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 13-1653 PJH

Defendants.
_______________________________/

12
13

The court is in receipt of a request by the Hon. Richard Seeborg for a determination

14

whether the above-entitled action is related to Allen v. OE Services, LLC, Case No. C-13-

15

2460, within the meaning of Civil Local Rule 3-12. The court has reviewed the complaints

16

and other papers filed in both cases, and has concluded that they are not related.

17

First, the cases involve the employment relationship of two different individuals –

18

Nicole Wilson and Stephanie Allen – with defendant OE Services LLC. Just as this court

19

would not necessarily find every employment case filed against a particular employer to be

20

related to every other employment case filed against that employer, even if similar issues

21

were raised regarding a standardized employment contract, the fact that both Wilson and

22

Allen are seeking a judicial declaration as to the enforceability of a non-compete clause

23

does not warrant a finding that their cases are related and should be assigned to the same

24

judge, because the facts underlying their employment and departure from employment will

25

be different.

26

More importantly, this court remanded the Wilson case on June 20, 2013, based on

27

the removing defendants’ inability to establish that the citizenship of all plaintiffs was

28

different than that of all defendants. The case is now pending in San Francisco Superior

1

Court. And, having found that there was no subject matter jurisdiction, this court did not

2

consider any of the issues raised in defendants’ motion to dismiss.

3

As the court understands it, the plaintiff in the Allen case is seeking remand based

4

on the defendants’ failure to establish that the required amount in controversy is met.

5

Thus, making a decision on that motion will require a different analysis than the one this

6

court applied in making a decision on the motion to remand in the Wilson case. Moreover,

7

as the court did not consider the arguments on the motion to dismiss in Wilson, there will

8

be no “duplication of effort” if another judge decides whatever issues the defendants have

9

raised in the motion to dismiss in Allen.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: August 7, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

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