O'Connor et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 474

ORDER Re First-Filed Rule and Uber's Request for Stay/Dismissal Pursuant to Colorado River Abstention Doctrine. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 2/4/2016. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Case No. 14-cv-5200-EMC
Case No. 15-cv-3667-EMC

v.

11

13

Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC

IN RE UBER FCRA LITIGATION

ORDER RE FIRST-FILED RULE AND
UBER’S REQUEST FOR
STAY/DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO
COLORADO RIVER ABSTENTION
DOCTRINE

14
15
16
17

RICARDO DEL RIO, et al.,

18
19
20
21

Plaintiffs,
v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

22
23

On December 17, 2015, the Court ordered Uber to file an opposition to the O’Connor

24

Plaintiffs‟ motion to amend in claims under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA).

25

O’Connor, Docket No. 426. Uber filed a brief in O’Connor, In re Uber FCRA Litigation, and Del

26

Rio, arguing that the Court should not only deny the O’Connor Plaintiffs‟ request to add PAGA

27

claims to the O’Connor action, but that the Court should also “stay or dismiss any PAGA claims

28

asserted by the In re FCRA and Del Rio Plaintiffs, to the extend those PAGA claims are

1

duplicative of PAGA claims already asserted by the Price [v. Uber Technologies, Inc., State Court

2

Case No. BC554512] plaintiff in the first-filed action.” O’Connor, Docket No. 427; In re Uber

3

FCRA Litigation, Docket No. 135; Del Rio, Docket No. 46 at 2. In the alternative, Uber urged the

4

Court to “apply the Colorado River doctrine of abstention and deny amendment to add, stay, or

5

dismiss the proposed PAGA claims without prejudice, pending the outcome of Price.” Id.

6
7

First, the Court finds that the PAGA statute does not require the stay or dismissal of
duplicative PAGA claims. Instead, PAGA only states that:

8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

No action may be brought under this section by an aggrieved
employee if the agency or any of its departments, divisions,
commissions, boards, agencies, or employees, on the same facts and
theories, cites a person within the timeframes set forth in Section
2699.3 for a violation of the same section or sections of the Labor
Code under which the aggrieved employee is attempting to recover a
civil penalty on behalf of himself or herself or others or initiates a
proceeding pursuant to Section 98.3.

13
14

Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(h). Thus, under the plain language of the statute, an employee may not

15

bring an action only when the Labor and Workplace Development Agency (LWDA) cites an

16

employer based on the same Labor Code violation. Uber has cited dicta in cases suggesting the

17

contrary. See Stafford v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-1187 KJM CKD, 2014 U.S.

18

Dist. LEXIS 163458, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2014) (citing section 2699(h) for the proposition

19

that “[t]he aggrieved employee cannot pursue a PAGA action if the agency or another party is

20

pursuing enforcement against the employer on the same claims under the same provisions of the

21

Labor Code”); Brown v. Ralph’s Grocery Co., 197 Cal. App. 4th 489, 501 (2011) (citing section

22

2699(h) for the proposition that PAGA “prohibits an employee action when the agency or

23

someone else is directly pursuing enforcement against the employer „on the same facts and

24

theories‟ under the same „section(s) of the Labor Code”). But the issue at bar was not presented in

25

those cases, and the statements therein are merely descriptive of section 2699(h); they were not

26

holdings. Importantly, other than a one sentence description, none of those cases explain why

27

section 2699(h) should be read to include deferring to a suit brought by private plaintiffs (as

28

opposed to the LWDA) when the statutory language makes no such provision. The Court
2

1

therefore declines to stay or dismiss the duplicative PAGA claims.1
Second, the Court declines to apply the Colorado River doctrine of abstention. Abstention

2
3

in favor of a parallel state action may be proper due to considerations of “[w]ise judicial

4

administration giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition

5

of litigation.” Nakash v. Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411, 1415 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Colorado River

6

Water Conserv. Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976)). However, such cases are “rare,”

7

“limited,” and „exceptional,” with only “only „the clearest of justifications,‟” supporting

8

abstention. R.R. St. & Co. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966, 977-78 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting

9

Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 818-19).
In determining whether to stay a case pursuant to Colorado River, courts in the Ninth

10

Circuit consider eight factors:

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

(1) which court first assumed jurisdiction over [the case]; (2) the
inconvenience of the federal forum; (3) the desire to avoid
piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in which the forums obtained
jurisdiction; (5) whether federal law or state law provides the rule of
decision on the merits; (6) whether the state court proceedings can
adequately protect the rights of the federal litigants; (7) the desire to
avoid forum shopping; and (8) whether the state court proceedings
will resolve all issues before the federal court.

13
14
15
16
17

R.R. St., 656 F.3d at 978-79. In this analysis, “[n]o one factor is necessarily determinative; a

18

carefully considered judgment taking into account both the obligation to exercise jurisdiction and

19

the combination of factors counseling against that exercise is required.” Colorado River, 424 U.S.

20

at 818-19. Nevertheless, certain of the eight factors are “dispositive;” in particular, “substantial

21

doubt as to whether the state proceedings will resolve the federal action precludes the granting of a

22

stay.” Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 12 F.3d 908, 913 (9th Cir. 1993).

23

Here, Uber argues that the Court should abstain from adjudicating PAGA claims that have

24

been raised in Price. O’Connor, Docket No. 427 at 8. However, even if the Court should abstain

25
26
27
28

1

A different analysis would be required if the Price PAGA claims had been decided, as a
“judgment in such an action is binding not only on the named employee plaintiff but also on
government agencies and any aggrieved employee not a party to the proceeding.” Arias v.
Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969, 985 (2009). However, the Price PAGA claims have yet to be
decided.
3

1

from adjudicating the PAGA claims that have been raised in Price, there is no dispute that PAGA

2

claims will remain in both In re Uber FCRA and Del Rio because both cases raise PAGA claims

3

that have not been brought in any other proceeding. Thus, the state case will not resolve the

4

federal actions, and there is little judicial economy to be gained from abstention. See Sciortino v.

5

Pepsico, Inc., 108 F. Supp. 3d 780, 815 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“Given the fact of the broader remedies

6

sought herein and the fact that certain of Plaintiffs‟ claims that are not based directly on

7

Proposition 65, the Court concludes that there is substantial doubt that the state proceedings will

8

resolve the federal action; this precludes a Colorado River stay.”). The Court therefore denies

9

Uber‟s request that it abstain from adjudicating PAGA claims that have been raised in Price.

10

Having found that neither the first-filed rule nor abstention apply in the instant cases, the
Court must still resolve the O’Connor Plaintiffs‟ request to amend in PAGA claims. The Court

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

will defer a decision on the motion to amend until after it has received a trial plan in this case. The

13

Court therefore ORDERS the O’Connor parties to meet-and-confer in-person on a viable trial

14

plan. The trial plan must, at a minimum, explain what claims and defenses (and elements thereof)

15

will be presented, the types of evidence that will be produced for each claim and defense, how the

16

presentation of evidence on behalf of or against the class will proceed, whether the trial should

17

proceed in phases (and what each phase would entail), and how damages and penalties will be

18

calculated. The trial plan should include the proposed PAGA claims to facilitate the Court‟s

19

assessment of Plaintiffs‟ motion to amend. If the parties are unable to agree on a trial plan, the

20

parties shall detail their separate trial plans along with a joint statement explaining the disputes

21

and each party‟s position. The trial plan(s) must be filed by March 10, 2016, and the Court will

22

set a Status Conference for March 24, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. to discuss any outstanding issues with

23

the trial plan.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

Dated: February 4, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
4