Raya v. AMAZON.COM, LLC et al

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY Amazon's motion to dismiss or stay the instant action is denied. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 1, 2015. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SANTIAGO RAYA, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated,

13
14
15
16
17
18

No. C 15-2005 MMC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS OR STAY

Plaintiff,
v.
AMAZON.COM, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, GOLDEN STATE FC,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

/

19
20

Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss or Stay, filed June 8, 2015, by defendants

21

Amazon.com, LLC and Golden State FC, LLC (collectively, “Amazon”), in which Amazon

22

seeks an order “dismissing or staying th[e] action under the first-to-file rule.” (See Notice of

23

Mot. at 1:5-6.) Plaintiff Santiago Raya (“Raya”) has filed opposition. No reply has been

24

filed. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the

25

motion, the Court finds the matter appropriate for decision on the parties’ respective written

26

submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for July 17, 2015, and rules as follows.

27
28

BACKGROUND
On March 18, 2015, Raya filed the instant complaint, alleging Amazon’s California
hourly non-exempt employees in its warehouse operations were “(1) not provided Second

1

Unpaid 30-minute Meal Periods for qualifying shifts exceeding 12 hours in length nor paid

2

one hour of compensation at the employees' regular rate in lieu thereof; (2) not provided

3

Third Paid 10-minute Rest Periods for qualifying shifts exceeding 10 hours in length nor

4

paid one hour of compensation at the employees' regular rate in lieu thereof; and (3) not

5

provided with compliant wage statements showing the start and end dates of each pay

6

period, nor the address of the employers as required by Cal. Labor Code section 226.”

7

(See Notice of Removal, filed May 4, 2015, Ex. A (“Compl.”) ¶ 1.)

8
9

Those allegations provide the basis of Raya’s six causes of action: (1) “Failure to
Provide Second Meal Periods for Qualifying Shifts or Compensation in Lieu Thereof in

10

Violation of Cal. Lab. Code, § 226.7; IWC Order 5; Cal. Code Regs., Title 8 § 11050" (see

11

id. ¶¶ 39-44); (2) “Failure to Authorize or Permit Third Paid Rest Periods for Qualifying

12

Shifts or Compensation in Lieu Thereof in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code, §§ 226.7, 512; IWC

13

Order 5; Cal. Code Regs., Title 8 § 11050” (id. ¶¶ 46-50); (3) “Failure to Timely Pay Wages

14

of Terminated or Resigned Employees in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code, §§ 201-203” (id.

15

¶¶ 52-57); (4) “Failure to Provide Employees with Compliant Itemized Wage Statement

16

Provisions in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code, §§ 226 (a) &(e)” (id. ¶¶ 59-63); (5) “Violation of

17

the Unfair Competition Law” (id. ¶¶ 65-69); and (6) “Violation of PAGA, Cal. Labor Code, §

18

2698, et seq.” (id. ¶¶ 71-76).

19

LEGAL STANDARD

20

The first-to-file rule is “a generally recognized doctrine of federal comity which

21

permits a district court to decline jurisdiction over an action when a complaint involving the

22

same parties and issues has already been filed in another district.” Pacesetter Sys, Inc. v.

23

Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 95 (9th Cir. 1982). “The first-to-file rule is intended to serve

24

the purpose of promoting efficiency,” Kohn Law Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Mississippi,

25

Inc., ––– F.3d ––––, ––––, 2015 WL 3499923, at *2 (9th Cir. June 4, 2015) (internal

26

quotation and citation omitted) and when applying the rule, “courts should be driven to

27

maximize economy, consistency, and comity,” id. (internal quotation and citation omitted).

28

District courts analyze three factors in determining whether to apply the first-to-file rule:
2

1

“chronology of the lawsuits, similarity of the parties, and similarity of the issues.” Id.
DISCUSSION

2
3

Amazon brings this motion on the ground that a case currently pending in Multi-

4

District Litigation in the Western District of Kentucky, Saldana, et al. v. Amazon, Inc., et al.,

5

Case No. 3:14-cv-00290, was filed December 19, 2013, almost fifteen months before the

6

filing of the instant action, and, according to Amazon, meets the rule’s similarity

7

requirements.

8
9

In Saldana, the operative complaint alleges Amazon maintained a “company
practice that requires employees to be subject to individual security searches on

10

[Amazon’s] premises after the employees clock out for meal periods and at the end of the

11

day when employees clock out for the end of their shifts,” which practice allegedly “results

12

in up to 20-30 minutes, or more, of additional compensable work each day because the

13

employees remain under the direct control of [Amazon].” (See Amazon’s Req. for Judicial

14

Notice, filed June 8, 2015, Ex. B to Ex. 1 (“Saldana Amended Complaint”) ¶ 1.) This

15

search requirement forms the basis for each of Saldana’s eight causes of action: (1)

16

“Failure to Pay Hourly Wages, alternatively Minimum Wages” (id. ¶¶ 39-44); (2) “Failure to

17

Pay Overtime Wages” (id. ¶¶ 45-48); (3) “Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Compensation

18

in Lieu Thereof” (id. ¶¶ 49-52); (4) “Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Compensation in

19

Lieu Thereof” (id. ¶¶ 53-56); (5) “Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due at Termination” (id.

20

¶¶ 57-62); (6) “Failure to Provide Itemized Employee Wage Statements” (id. ¶¶ 63-65); (7)

21

“Violation of the Unfair Competition Law” (id. ¶¶ 66-71); and (8) “Violation of the Private

22

Attorneys’ General Act of 2004 (‘PAGA’)” (id. ¶¶ 72-75).

23

Raya does not dispute the first two factors, i.e., that the Saldana action was filed first

24

and that the parties in both actions are similar. As to the third factor, Raya, while

25

acknowledging the statutory predicates are similar, contends the issues are not similar

26

because the factual predicates are different. The Court agrees.

27
28

As described above, Saldana is premised on Amazon’s alleged failure to pay and
provide meal and rest periods for the time employees spent waiting in security lines,
3

1

whereas the instant action is based on Amazon’s alleged failure to provide a sufficient

2

number of meal and rest periods for assigned shifts1 and Amazon’s alleged failure to issue

3

paychecks listing the start and end dates for the pay period and correctly identifying the

4

employer. The Court acknowledges that “the issues in both cases . . . need not be

5

identical, only substantially similar,” see Kohn, 2015 WL 3499923, at *3, and Amazon cites

6

to various district court opinions in which substantial similarity has been found. See, e.g.,

7

Inherent v. Martindale-Hubbell, 420 F. Supp. 2d, 1093, 1099 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (transferring

8

action where “key dispute in both actions” was whether letter of interest gave rise to a

9

binding contract, and if so, whether breach occurred); Walker v. Progressive Casualty Ins.

10

Co., 2003 WL 21056704, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 9, 2003) (finding “slight differences in the

11

claims asserted do not prevent application of the rule where the underlying complained-of

12

conduct is almost identical”; dismissing later-filed action where “issue in both cases [was]

13

whether [defendant’s] claims adjusters [were] employed in a bona fide administrative

14

capacity and [were] therefore exempt from overtime pay”). Here, however, in contrast to

15

the cases on which Amazon relies, the issues raised in Saldana and the instant action are,

16

as set forth above, substantially dissimilar.

17
18
19

Accordingly, Amazon’s motion to dismiss or stay the instant action is hereby
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
Dated: July 1, 2015
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The complaint in the instant action contains no reference to time spent waiting in
security lines and, to the extent any further clarification might be deemed necessary, Raya,
in his opposition to the instant motion, confirms his claims here have “nothing to do with
security lines.” (See Opp’n at 3:2-3.)
4