Sheehy v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 5 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

HAROLD SHEEHY,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
SANTA CLARA VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,
Defendant.

15
16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:14-cv-01325-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS
(Re: Docket No. 5)

Before the court is Defendant Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s motion to
dismiss Plaintiff Harold Sheehy’s Fair Labor Standards Act claim pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). 1 Sheehy opposes. The court finds this motion suitable for disposition on

19
20
21

the papers pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 2 After considering the arguments, the court DENIES
SCVTA’s motion.
Sheehy’s case trails a related FLSA action filed by Baljinder Rai on behalf of himself and

22
23

other VTA employees similarly-situated by nearly two years: Rai’s complaint was filed

24

August 17, 2012; Sheey has not “opted-in.” Sheehy instead filed his own complaint on March 21,

25
26
1

27
2

28

See Docket No. 5.

See Civil L.R. 7-1(b) (“In the Judge’s discretion, or upon request by counsel and with the Judge’s
approval, a motion may be determined without oral argument or by telephone conference call.”).
1
Case No. 5:14-cv-01325-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

1

2014, also on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated. 3 Both cases center on FLSA

2

claims. SCVTA now urges that this court should invoke its discretion to dismiss the Sheehy

3

complaint in light of the prior case. The court formally related the cases last week. 4

4

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The first-to-file rule is a “doctrine of federal comity which permits a district court to decline
jurisdiction over an action when a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been
filed in another district.” 5 This rule “was developed to ‘serve[ ]the purpose of promoting
efficiency well and should not be disregarded lightly.’” 6 In addition to judicial efficiency, the rule
helps prevent “the risk of inconsistent decisions that would arise from multiple litigations of

11

identical claims.” 7 “Under this doctrine, a district court may choose to transfer, stay or dismiss an

12

action where a similar complaint has been filed in another district court.” 8

13
14
15

“The court must consider three threshold factors in deciding whether to apply the first-tofile rule: (1) the chronology of the two actions; (2) the similarity of the parties; and (3) the
similarity of the issues.” 9 However, the first-to-file rule is “not a rigid or inflexible rule to be

16
17

mechanically applied, but rather is to be applied with a view to the dictates of sound judicial

18
3

See Docket No. 1.

4

See Docket No. 14.

19
20
5

21

Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1161 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Pacesetter Sys. Inc. v.
Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94-95 (9th Cir. 1982)).

22

6

23

Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Church of
Scientology v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 611 F.2d 738, 750 (9th Cir. 1979)).

7

24
25
26
27

Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Harris Corp., Case No. 5:11-cv-019440-LHK, 2012 WL 588792, at *2
(N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2012); see also Church of Scientology, 611 F.2d at 750 (“The doctrine is
designed to avoid placing an unnecessary burden on the federal judiciary, and to avoid the
embarrassment of conflicting judgments.”).

8

See Hilton v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-2167, 2013 WL 5487317, at *4
(N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2013) (citing Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 623).
9

28

Id. (citing Ward. v. Follett Corp., 158 F.R.D. 645, 648 (N.D. Cal. 1994); Psystar,
658 F.3d at 1161).
2
Case No. 5:14-cv-01325-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

1
2

administration.” 10 “Accordingly, a district court is left with the discretion to deviate from the firstto-file rule where equity dictates.” 11

3

II. DISCUSSION

4

As an initial matter, the court observes that the three threshold first-to-file factors are

5

satisfied in this case. Sheehy’s action trails the Rai complaint by nineteen months. Although the

6

parties and issues are not identical, both cases involve similar VTA drivers seeking similar unpaid

7

wages pursuant to FLSA. 12

8
Although not raised by either party, the court also must assess “whether or not the

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

first-to-file rule has any applicability where a complaint involving the same parties and issues has

11

been filed in the same district or before the same judge in the same district.” 13 Judges of this court

12

have analyzed first-to-file motions notwithstanding “the fact that” two “actions had both been filed

13
14
15
16

10

17

11

18
19

Pacesetter, 678 F.2d at 95.

Hilton, 2013 WL 5487317, at *4 (citing Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628 (“The most basic aspect of the
first-to-file rule is that it is discretionary, ‘an ample degree of discretion, appropriate for disciplined
and experienced judges, must be left to the lower courts.’”) (quoting Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two
Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183-84 (1952))).
12

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

See id. at *7.
If the first-to-file rule were to require a strict comparison only of the named plaintiffs in
the two actions, the rule would almost never apply in class actions. This result would be in
direct conflict to the purposes of the first-to-file rule because class actions are frequently
complex affairs which tax judicial resources—the very cases in which the principles of
avoiding duplicative proceedings and inconsistent holdings are at their zenith. Cf. Mayfield
v. Barr, 985 F.2d 1090 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (recognizing that class actions are “often complex,
drawn out proceedings demanding a large share of finite judicial resources”).
13
Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp., Case No. 1:13-cv-01498-SAB, 2013 WL 5877788, at *2
(E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2013)
The parties do not discuss whether or not the first-to-file rule has any applicability
where a complaint involving the same parties and issues has been filed in the same district
or before the same judge in the same district. Other district courts have held that the firstto-file rule applies to cases filed in the same district. However, at least one district court
has held that the first-to-file rule has no applicability when the two actions at issue are
pending before the same judge in the same district. (internal citations omitted).
3
Case No. 5:14-cv-01325-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

1

in the same” district. 14 The Central District of California has observed, however, “that application

2

of the first-to-file rule is not” appropriate where “the actions at issue” are “pending before the

3

same” judge. 15 The court held that “concerns justifying application of the rule-comity, efficiency,

4

and uniformity—are nonexistent or greatly reduced.” 16

5
6

Even though the threshold factors are satisfied, the justifications for application of the
first-to-file do not resonate because the undersigned presides over the two parallel actions at issue.

7
8
9

The court also remains troubled about abrogating Sheehy’s right to due process: Sheehy has his
own FLSA claims and should not be compelled by the undersigned against his will to opt into a

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

case and to potentially accept counsel not of his choosing. The court will work with all parties to

11

mitigate any burden engendered by two parallel proceedings and will entertain appropriate requests

12

to that end.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

14

Wallerstein v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc., 967 F. Supp. 2d 1289, 1294 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (citing
Abrahams v. Hard Drive Prods., Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-01006-JCS, 2012 WL 1945493, at *7
(N.D. Cal. May 30, 2012).
15

Henderson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Case No. 11-cv-3428-PSG-PLAX, 2011 WL 4056004,
at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2011).
But courts have regularly declined to apply the first-to-file rule in those situations where
the two actions at issue are pending before the same judge. See, e.g., Lantiq N. Am., Inc. v.
Ralink Tech. Corp., Case No. 11-cv-0234, 2011 WL 2600747, *9 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 30, 2011);
Word Music, LLC v. Priddis Music, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-0502, 2007 WL 3231835, *1
(M.D. Tenn. Oct. 30, 2007); Olin Corp. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., Case No. 2:10-cv-00623-GMN,
2011 WL 1337407, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 6, 2011). In such situations, the concerns justifying
application of the rule-comity, efficiency, and uniformity—are nonexistent or greatly
reduced. See Olin, 2011 WL 1337407, at *2 (noting that where “both cases are before the
same judge, the concerns about treading upon the authority of other courts or blindly
engaging in duplicative litigation become far less pertinent.”); Word Music,
2007 WL 3231835 at *2 (concluding that the first-to-file rule “is no longer relevant” upon
transfer of the second action to the same district and judge presiding over the first action).
As the actions at issue here are now pending before the same judge, the Court
determines that application of the first-to-file rule is not appropriate. See Olin,
2011 WL 1337407, at *2. The Court therefore declines to dismiss or stay this action
pursuant to the first-to-file rule.
16

Id.
4

Case No. 5:14-cv-01325-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS