Garcia v. CitiGroup, Inc.

Filing 30

ORDER GRANTING 18 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND TERMINATING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 8/25/2011. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2011)

1

**E-Filed 8/25/2011**

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
13

ANGELA GARCIA, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly
situated,

14

Plaintiff,

15
16
17

Case No. 11-cv-00692-JF (PSG)
ORDER1 GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
AND TERMINATING MOTION TO
DISMISS AS MOOT

v.
[Re: Docket No. 18]
CITIGROUP INC., a Delaware corporation;
CITIBANK, N.A., a national association; and
Does 1 through 10,

18

Defendants.

19
20

Defendants Citigroup Inc. and Citibank, N.A. move to stay proceedings in this case, or in

21

the alternative, to dismiss Plaintiff’s class action complaint pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. P.

22

12(b)(6). The Court has considered the moving and responding papers and the oral arguments of

23

counsel presented at the hearing on July 8, 2011. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to

24

stay will be granted, and the motion to dismiss will be terminated as moot.

25
26
27
28

1

This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.

Case No. 11-cv-00692-JF (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS ETC.
(JFEX2)

1

I. BACKGROUND

2

The following allegations are set forth in the operative First Amended Complaint

3

(“FAC”). Plaintiff Angela Garcia works for Defendants as a personal banker in Palo Alto,

4

California. FAC ¶ 23. The position personal banker is non-exempt. FAC ¶ 23. Garcia alleges

5

that during her employment, Defendants required her and other class members to work off the

6

clock, depriving her and other class members of overtime compensation and minimum wage.

7

FAC ¶ 46-47.

8
9

Garcia also alleges that Defendants failed to reimburse her and other class members for
necessary business expenses that they incurred. FAC ¶ 70-73. She claims that even though

10

Defendants required her to contact and meet clients when off the clock, Defendants never

11

reimbursed her for mileage and telephone expenses. FAC ¶ 70. She asserts that Defendants

12

required her and other class members to work split shifts without additional compensation. FAC

13

¶ 79. Finally, she alleges that Defendants forced her and other class members to work frequently

14

through their meal and rest periods without additional compensation. FAC ¶ 87.

15
16
17

II. DISCUSSION
A.

Motion to Stay
Defendants argue that the Court should stay the instant proceedings because a similar

18

lawsuit, Mark Davis v. Citibank, N.A., presently is pending in the Orange Superior Court and that

19

litigation is substantially advanced. Mot. to Stay Proceedings at 2-5. Defendants assert that

20

Davis and this case are substantially similar because the plaintiffs in both cases are non-exempt

21

Citibank employees and the claims in both cases arise under California’s wage and hour laws.

22

Id. at 5. Defendants rely upon Colorado River Conservation District v. United States. 424 U.S.

23

800, 817 (1976). Under Colorado River, while the pendency of a state court action does not bar

24

an action regarding the same matter in federal court, in exceptional circumstances

25

“considerations of wise judicial administration” outweigh the duty to exercise federal

26

jurisdiction, and a federal court may stay an action. Id. at 818.

27

Garcia opposes a stay. She argues that this case and Davis are not substantially similar, in

28

part because her claims with respect to split-shift premiums and unreimbursed business expenses
2
Case No. 11-cv-00692-JF (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS ETC.
(JFEX2)

1
2

are not presented in Davis. Garcia also points out that she is not a party in Davis.
A court must balance carefully several factors to determine whether a stay in favor of

3

state proceedings is appropriate: (1) whether either court has asserted jurisdiction over the res or

4

property; (2) the inconvenience of the forum; (3) the avoidance of piecemeal litigation; (4) the

5

order in which each court obtained jurisdiction; (5) whether state or federal law controls; (6)

6

whether the state proceeding can address adequately the rights of the parties. Moses H. Cone.

7

Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Ctr., 460 U.S. 1, 16 (1983).

8
9

The federal and state actions need not have identical claims for a federal court to apply
the Colorado River doctrine; substantial similarity suffices. Nakash v. Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411,

10

1416 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, while this action and Davis are not identical, both actions relate to

11

Citibank’s alleged wrongful employment practices. The actions involve the same California

12

statutes and assert substantially similar claims. Although Garcia asserts that her claims with

13

respect to split-shift premiums and unreimbursed business expenses will not be resolved in the

14

Davis action, in fact the Davis complaint makes specific reference to split-shift premiums and

15

unreimbursed business expenses. See Stecher Decl. Ex. A.2

16

The Court concludes that on balance, the Colorado River factors warrant a stay of the

17

instant proceedings. Because this case does not involve a res or property, the first Colorado

18

River factor is irrelevant. Although Garcia suggests that the federal courts are a better forum for

19

litigating class actions, she does not make any showing that the Orange Superior Court is an

20

inconvenient or inadequate forum. Maintaining this action while Davis is being litigated will

21

result in a waste of judicial resources, and litigating two concurrent actions may result in

22

unnecessary duplication and conflicting rulings or judgments. A stay will encourage resolution

23

of all the related claims and avoid piecemeal litigation. Davis was filed three years before this

24
25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff and the Class “were deprived reporting time and split shift pay in violation of
IWC Wage Order 4 § 5, and were deprived of mileage reimbursements.” ¶ 49; Defendants “will
continue to fail to pay overtime, straight time, meal and rest period, split shift and reporting time
wages and mileage reimbursements to Plaintiff and the Class.” ¶ 55; “[T]hese employees were
not paid... split shift compensation.” ¶ 64; “[N]one of the Class were ever paid... split shift.” ¶
65.
3
Case No. 11-cv-00692-JF (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS ETC.
(JFEX2)

1

action, and both cases raise only state law claims. Finally, Garcia conceded at oral argument that

2

she could take part in Davis as an intervenor or objector if necessary.

3

B.

4

12(b)(6) Dismissal
Defendants argue alternatively that the Court should dismiss this action because the FAC

5

fails to state a claim. Because it concludes that a stay is warranted, the Court need not address

6

Defendants’ alternative motion to dismiss. The Court notes, however, that Garcia does not

7

identify who told her to work off the clock; provide the dates when she worked without pay;

8

elaborate how Defendants required her to work split shifts and through her meal and rest periods;

9

or explain what specific policy Defendants had in place to deny her reimbursement of her

10

business expenses.

11
12

IV. ORDER
The motion to stay the proceedings is GRANTED. The alternative motion to dismiss is

13

terminated as moot.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

DATE: 8/25/2011
JEREMY FOGEL
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

Case No. 11-cv-00692-JF (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS ETC.
(JFEX2)