Chris Azpeitia et al v. Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC et al
Filing
52
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND APPOINTING INTERIM LEAD COUNSEL by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting (49) Motion to Consolidate Cases in case 3:17-cv-00123-JST. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
CHRIS AZPEITIA, et al.,
7
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10
TESORO REFINING & MARKETING
COMPANY LLC, et al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 17-cv-00123-JST
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE AND APPOINTING
INTERIM LEAD COUNSEL
Defendants.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate Azpeitia v. Tesoro Refining and
Marketing Company LLC et al., Case No. 17-cv-00123-JST, and Jinetra Bonner v. Tesoro
Refining & Marketing Company, LLC, Case No. 17-cv-03850-JST, and Plaintiffs’ request for
appointment of proposed interim lead counsel. ECF No. 49. Defendants do not oppose the
motions. ECF No. 51. For the reasons set forth below, the Court consolidates the Bonner case
with this action and appoints Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP as interim lead class counsel.1
I.
19
22
23
CONSOLIDATION2
A.
20
21
Re: ECF No. 49
Procedural History
On January 10, 2017, the Azpeitia Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California. ECF No. 1. On March 22, 2017,
Jinetra Bonner filed suit in Sacramento Superior Court, alleging the same claims and one
additional claim. See Bonner, ECF No. 1. On May 3, 2017, Defendants removed the Bonner
24
25
26
27
28
1
The Court concludes that the motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument. Civ. L.R.
7-1(b). The motion hearing scheduled for September 28, 2017 is vacated. The case management
conference on that date remains as set.
2
For further factual background and detail on the nature of the claims, refer to the Court’s order
granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. ECF No. 43; Azpeitia v.
Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co. LLC, Case No. 17-cv-00123, 2017 WL 3115168 (N.D. Cal.
July 21, 2017).
1
action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Id. On June 12,
2
2017, the Bonner Plaintiff filed a Motion to Change Venue to the Northern District of California
3
and a Notice of Related Case in the Azpeitia action. Bonner, ECF No. 5-6. The Bonner court
4
granted the motion to transfer on July 6, 2017. Id., ECF No. 14. This Court related the two
5
actions on July 25, 2017. Id., ECF No. 22. On July 21, 2017, this Court issued an order granting
6
in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss in the Azpeitia action. ECF No. 43.
7
The Bonner court terminated as moot the pending motion to dismiss in the Bonner action, raising
8
the same legal and factual arguments as in the Azpeitia motion, in connection with the transfer
9
order. Bonner, ECF No. 14. Plaintiffs now wish to consolidate the two actions.
B.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Legal Standard
“When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it
12
. . . may order all the actions consolidated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The “district court has broad
13
discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research
14
Co. v. Dist. Court, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). “In determining whether or not to
15
consolidate cases, the Court should ‘weigh the interest of judicial convenience against the
16
potential for delay, confusion and prejudice.’” Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d
17
1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Machine Shop, Inc., 720
18
F. Supp. 805, 806-07 (N.D. Cal. 1989).
19
C.
Analysis
20
Both actions share the same proposed class, the same legal claims for the same class
21
period, the same Defendants, and nearly identical factual allegations. ECF No. 49 at 4. The First
22
Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in Azpeitia alleges claims Defendants breached their legal
23
obligations to authorize and permit rest periods and to furnish timely and accurate wage
24
statements, pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 226, 226.3, 226.7 and California Welfare
25
Commission Wage Order No. 1-2001 (“Wage Order 1-2001”). ECF No. 21. The complaint in
26
Bonner includes identical wage and hour claims with an additional claim for meal break
27
violations. Bonner, ECF No. 1. On June 29, 2017, the Bonner court dismissed Bonner’s meal
28
break claims, pursuant to stipulation, to limit her complaint to the same claims alleged in Azpeitia.
2
1
Bonner, ECF No. 12. On July 21, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’
2
motion to dismiss in Azpeitia. ECF No. 43.
The two related actions clearly involve common questions of law and fact. Accordingly,
3
4
both matters require a determination of whether Defendants’ alleged conduct violates wage and
5
hour law. Moreover, the Court is not aware of any delay or prejudice to either party that would
6
result from consolidation of the two cases, particularly where both cases are in the early stages of
7
litigation and where the parties have stipulated to extend the time for Defendants to respond to a
8
possible consolidated complaint to avoid duplication of efforts. ECF No. 46.
Efficiency considerations favor consolidation in this case. Motion practice, discovery, and
9
trial will all be based on the same common set of facts and legal issues. Consolidation will allow
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
both cases to proceed at the same pace, promote judicial economy by lessening the Court’s burden
12
in managing the two cases, and streamline the parties’ briefing requirements.
13
The Court accordingly grants Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate.
14
15
II.
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiffs also move for an order designating Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP as interim
16
lead class counsel in order to best protect the interests of the putative class and promote efficiency
17
of case management.
18
A.
Legal Standard
19
Rule 23(g)(3) provides that “[t]he court may designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a
20
putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a class action.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
21
23(g). This rule “authorizes [a] court to designate interim counsel during the pre-certification
22
period if necessary to protect the interests of the putative class.” Wang v. OCZ Technology Grp.,
23
Inc., Case No. C 11-01415 PSG, 2011 WL 13156817, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2011) (quoting
24
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2)(A) advisory committee notes on 2003 amends.) “[D]esignation of interim
25
counsel clarifies responsibility for protecting the interests of the class during precertification
26
activities, such as making and responding to motions, conducting any necessary discovery,
27
moving for class certification, and negotiating settlement.” Manual for Complex Litig., § 21.11
28
(4th ed. 2004).
3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1)(A) requires that courts consider the following
1
2
factors in appointing class counsel: “(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating
3
potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex
4
litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel's knowledge of the applicable
5
law; and (iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class.” The Court looks to
6
those factors in designating interim class counsel as well. See Parkinson v. Hyundai Motor Am.,
7
2006 WL 2289801, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2006) (“Rule 23(g) provides criteria to consider when
8
appointing class counsel, without distinguishing interim counsel. Presumably, the same factors
9
apply[.]”); In re Air Cargo Shipping Serv. Antitrust Litig., 240 F.R.D. 56, 57 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)
(“[I]t appears to be generally accepted that the considerations set out in Rule 23(g)(1)(C), which
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
governs appointment of class counsel once a class is certified, apply equally to the designation of
12
interim class counsel before certification.”).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ proposal and concludes that lead class counsel
13
14
comprised of Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP would “fairly and adequately represent the interests
15
of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B). The firm has done extensive work identifying,
16
investigating, and prosecuting the potential claims. ECF No. 49 at 8; ECF No. 49-1 ¶ 11. The
17
firm has experience handling complex litigation and knowledge of the applicable law. Id.; Id. ¶¶
18
12-15; ECF No. 49-2 at 35-39. The firm has established that it will commit adequate resources to
19
representing the class. ECF No. 49-1 ¶¶ 18-19. Having one lead class counsel for the consolidated
20
action will also promote judicial efficiency, and all three firms representing the Plaintiffs agree
21
that Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP should be appointed interim lead class counsel, with the
22
hours expended litigating the action to be distributed evenly between the firms. ECF No. 49 at 9;
23
ECF No. 49-1 ¶ 18. Accordingly, the Court designates Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP as interim
24
lead class counsel.
25
CONCLUSION
26
The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidates and appoints Hadsell Stormer &
27
Renick, LLP as interim lead class counsel. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a consolidated
28
///
4
1
complaint within 45 days of the date of this order. Defendants shall file their answer to Plaintiffs’
2
consolidated complaint within 45 days after Plaintiffs file their consolidated complaint.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 14, 2017
5
6
7
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?