Scott v. Golden State FC, LLC et al
Filing
26
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. granting 8 Motion to Stay. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2021)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
LOVENIA SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY
Re: Dkt. No. 8
10
GOLDEN STATE FC, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 21-cv-02147-HSG
12
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay the case pending resolution of an
13
earlier-filed putative employment class action, Trevino v. Golden State FC, LLC, Lead Case No.
14
1:18-cv-00120-DAD (BAM) (E.D. Cal.) (“Trevino”). Dkt. Nos. 8 (“Mot”), 16 (“Opp.”), 17
15
(“Reply”).1 Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court GRANTS Amazon’s
16
motion.2
17
I.
BACKGROUND
18
On February 8, 2021, Plaintiff Lovenia Scott filed this action on behalf of herself and a
19
class defined as “[a]ll persons employed by [Amazon] and/or any staffing agencies and/or any
20
other third parties as warehouse employees in hourly or non-exempt positions in California” from
21
February 8, 2017 to present. Compl. ¶ 11. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges several violations of
22
California’s Labor Code, including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly
23
wages, failure to indemnify for business expenses, failure to provide accurate written wage
24
statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, sharing of liability with a labor contractor, and
25
unfair competition. Compl. ¶ 1. Amazon removed this action on March 26, 2021. Dkt. 1, Notice
26
27
28
The Court refers to the Defendants collectively as “Amazon.”
The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is
deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b).
1
2
1
of Removal.
On April 2, 2021, Amazon moved to stay this action pending final resolution of Trevino,
2
3
which was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on July
4
12, 2017.3 Mot. at 1. The Trevino Plaintiffs seek to represent “[a]ll persons who were employed
5
by [Amazon] in California as non-exempt workers” from July 12, 2013 to the date of judgment to
6
be entered by the Trevino court. Dkt. No. 9, Ex. A, Trevino First Amended Consolidated
7
Complaint (“Trevino FACC”) ¶ 2. They allege violations of California’s Labor Code, including
8
failure to pay wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage
9
statements, and unfair competition; they also seek recovery of civil penalties. See Trevino FACC
¶¶ 28–83. The Trevino court held a class certification hearing on May 12, 2021, and Magistrate
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe issued a findings and recommendations report recommending that
12
Trevino Plaintiffs’ motion be granted in part and denied in part. Trevino, Dkt. No. 166. The
13
matter was referred to District Judge Dale A. Drozd. Id.
14
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A district court’s “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every
15
16
court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for
17
itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). To
18
determine whether a Landis stay is warranted, courts consider: (1) “the possible damage which
19
may result from the granting of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in
20
being required to go forward,” and (3) “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the
21
simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to
22
result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299
23
U.S. at 254–55). “[I]f there is even a fair possibility that the stay for which [the requesting party]
24
prays will work damage to [someone] else,” then the party seeking a stay “must make out a clear
25
26
27
28
3
Amazon filed a request for judicial notice in support of the motion to stay. Dkt. No. 9. Plaintiff
filed no opposition. The Court GRANTS the entirety of Amazon’s request, which concerns
public court records filed in the Trevino proceeding. See U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens
Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (“We may take notice of proceedings in
other courts, both and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct
relation to matters at issue.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
1
case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. A district
2
court’s decision to grant or deny a Landis stay is a matter of discretion. Dependable Highway
3
Express, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007).
The first-filed rule is an established doctrine that gives district courts discretion to stay
4
5
proceedings if a case with substantially similar issues and parties was filed previously in another
6
district court. Kohn Law Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir.
7
2015); In re Bozic, 888 F.3d 1048, 1051–52 (9th Cir. 2018). The rule is meant to “serve[] the
8
purpose of promoting efficiency well and should not be disregarded lightly.” Alltrade, Inc. v.
9
Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir. 1991) (alteration in original) (quoting Church of
Scientology of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 611 F.2d 738, 750 (9th Cir. 1979)). The doctrine
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
provides that when “substantially identical actions are proceeding in different courts, the court of
12
the later-filed action should defer to the jurisdiction of the court of the first-filed action by either
13
dismissing, staying, or transferring the later-filed suit.” Molander v. Google LLC, 473 F. Supp. 3d
14
1013, 1017 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (citation omitted). “The rule reflects the common-sense proposition
15
that ‘when two identical actions are filed in courts of concurrent jurisdiction, the court which first
16
acquired jurisdiction should try the lawsuit.’” Id. (citation omitted).
17
III.
DISCUSSION
18
Amazon contends that the overlap between this action and Trevino warrants a stay under
19
the first-filed rule or the Court’s discretion under Landis. Amazon notes that several other cases
20
have been “stayed or dismissed due to overlap with Trevino.” Mot. at 8 n.2; see, e.g., Noflin v.
21
Amazon.com.NVDC LLC, Case No. 8:18-cv-01400 (C.D. Cal. 2018), Dkt. No. 14 (civil minutes
22
noting that court stayed the action and directed joint status reports every 90 days). In opposing
23
any stay, Plaintiff points to factual dissimilarities and the “very real possibility that it will take a
24
long time for Trevino to resolve.” Opp. at 6–7. Given the significant overlap between the issues
25
and parties in this matter and Trevino, the Court exercises its discretion to grant Amazon’s motion
26
to stay proceedings pending final resolution of Trevino.
27
A.
28
To determine whether the first-filed rule applies, a court analyzes three factors: chronology
First-Filed Rule
3
1
of the lawsuits, similarity of the parties, and similarity of the issues. Kohn, 787 F.3d at 1240. As
2
to the first factor, Trevino was filed on July 12, 2017, and Plaintiff filed this action in state court
3
on February 8, 2021. There is no dispute that Trevino was filed first.
4
As to the second factor, the parties are substantially similar in Trevino and in this matter.
5
The Court follows the approach of comparing putative classes rather than named plaintiffs in
6
applying the first-filed rule. See Pedro v. Millennium Prods., Inc., 2016 WL 3029681, at *3 (N.D.
7
Cal. 2016) (collecting cases in which district courts in the Ninth Circuit have compared putative
8
classes rather than named Plaintiffs in applying the first-filed rule). Here, the putative classes for
9
the collective actions overlap in that they both seek to represent Amazon employees from
February 8, 2017 to present. Scott Compl. ¶ 11; Trevino FACC ¶ 2. And Amazon is the defendant
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
in both cases. Thus, substantial similarity of the parties is established, satisfying the second factor
12
of the first-filed rule. See Inherent v. Martindale-Hubbell, 420 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 1097 (N.D. Cal.
13
2006)) (noting that the first-to-file rule does not require strict identity of the parties, but rather
14
substantial similarity).
15
As to the third factor, Plaintiff does not dispute that both cases involve similar claims.
16
Opp. at 1, 4 (noting both cases involve claims for meal break, rest break, and unpaid wages
17
violations). Plaintiff instead argues that the factual dissimilarities between her claims and those in
18
Trevino preclude an application of the first-filed rule, but offers no authority to support this
19
position. See Opp. at 5. The “central question” presented by each overlapping claim in both cases
20
is the same, which satisfies the second factor. See Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v.
21
Payless Shoesource, Inc., 2012 WL 3277222, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012) (citing Inherent, 420
22
F. Supp. 2d at 1099) (“[T]he requirement that the issues in both actions be ‘substantially similar’
23
is satisfied even where different claims are advanced in each action, so long as the ‘key dispute’ in
24
each action is the same.”). In Kohn, the Ninth Circuit explained that so long as the “heart” of the
25
issues is the same as that of the issues in the first-filed case, the issues are substantially similar
26
enough to satisfy the third factor. 787 F.3d at 1241. Despite factual variations, the “central
27
question” in Plaintiff’s meal and rest period claims is substantially similar to the one raised in
28
Trevino. For example, both rest period claims seek to address whether Amazon provided adequate
4
1
rest periods of at least 10 minutes for every four hours of work. Compare Trevino FACC ¶ 48,
2
with Scott Compl. ¶ 26. And both meal period claims seek to answer the “central question” of
3
whether Amazon provided adequate meal periods of 30 minutes for every five-hour work period.
4
Compare Trevino FACC ¶ 43, with Scott Compl. ¶ 20. The meal and rest break claims concern
5
the alleged control of putative class members and require a determination as to the existence and
6
content of Amazon’s meal and rest break policies. Additionally, Plaintiff’s wage statements claim
7
echoes those in Trevino: whether Amazon’s statements adequately reflected total hours worked.
8
Compare Trevino FACC ¶¶ 56-58, with Scott Compl. ¶ 33. Though Plaintiff alleges a claim for
9
reimbursement of business expenses not raised in Trevino, this does not alter this Court’s analysis
due to the substantial similarity between the other issues. See Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Pittsburgh, PA, 2012 WL 3277222, at *3. Accordingly, the Court finds that a stay is warranted
12
under the first-to-file rule due to the chronology of the actions and the substantial similarity of the
13
parties and issues between this case and Trevino.
14
B.
15
The Court also finds that the Landis factors favor a stay. As to the first factor, Amazon
Landis factors
16
argues that Plaintiff will not be harmed by a stay because she seeks only monetary damages and
17
her claims will be resolved by the outcome in Trevino. Mot. at 10. To support her claim that she
18
will suffer harm, Plaintiff points to the risk of losing valuable contact information and the
19
likelihood of a “lengthy and indefinite delay” given the Eastern District’s docket and resources.
20
Specifically, Plaintiff argues that declarations from or surveys of putative class members are
21
important to wage and hour class actions and that a stay would increase the likelihood that
22
Amazon will lose contact information for putative class members. Opp. at 6. This Court has
23
previously found that speculative claims of an inability to access relevant contact information do
24
not amount to sufficient injury in the context of a Landis analysis. See Hyams v. CVS Health
25
Corp., No. 18-CV-06278-HSG, 2020 WL 6891901, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2020) (granting
26
stay in putative wage and hour class action despite Plaintiff’s speculative argument that
27
unavailability of contact information records presents a plausible injury). And the Court is
28
unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s references to the judicial emergency of the Eastern District, as Plaintiff
5
1
cites no case law indicating that this Court should speculate about another district court’s case load
2
or the speed at which Trevino might be resolved.
In challenging Amazon’s requested timeline for the stay as “indefinite,” Plaintiff notes that
3
4
the Trevino case could involve appellate proceedings and “potentially even further trial
5
proceedings after an appeal.” Opp. at 7. Plaintiff relies on the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in
6
Dependable Highway Express Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co. to argue that a stay pending the final
7
resolution of Trevino would not be of a “reasonable duration.” See 498 F.3d at 1066 (holding that
8
a stay pending final resolution of an international arbitration that had not begun in two years did
9
not constitute a stay of “reasonable duration”). The Court is unpersuaded that a stay pending final
resolution of an earlier-filed case in another district court encompasses an unreasonable time
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
frame. Additionally, since Plaintiff is not seeking injunctive relief against any ongoing or future
12
harm, the time frame of the stay is reasonable. See Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1112
13
(9th Cir. 2005) (finding a fair possibility of harm a fair possibility of harm because the plaintiff
14
sought injunctive relief and monetary damages against an ongoing harm). Accordingly, the Court
15
finds that there is no showing of plausible damage from a stay.
16
As to the second factor, Amazon contends that it will suffer undue hardship due to “having
17
to unnecessarily litigate a case and expend additional time and money.” Mot. at 10 (citing Bangor
18
Hydro Elec. Co. v. Bridgewell Res., LLC, No. CV-10-726-HZ, 2011 WL 13250919, at *3 (D. Or.
19
July 20, 2011)). It notes that this case was filed after the class certification motion in Trevino was
20
fully briefed and asserts that “class discovery and motion practice will cover much of the same
21
ground.” Id. at 10–11. The Court finds these arguments are more relevant to the third factor, and
22
to that end, weigh heavily in favor of a stay. As previously discussed, a substantial amount of the
23
claims in both proceedings involve common legal issues, and what happens in Trevino likely
24
could impact the overlapping claims in this case. Accordingly, because a stay will facilitate
25
judicial economy and there is no showing of any plausible damage, the Court GRANTS the
26
motion to stay.
27
IV.
28
CONCLUSION
The parties shall file a joint statement every 120 days updating the Court on the progress of
6
1
the proceedings in Trevino. The Court will periodically evaluate the need for and reasonableness
2
of continuing the stay. The parties are also directed to notify the Court within 48 hours of a
3
decision on the pending motion for class certification.
4
5
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 15, 2021
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
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
7
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?