Echevarria v. Aerotek, Inc. et al

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING 32 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO RELATE CASES; AND DENYING 38 MOTION TO STRIKE REPLY BRIEF. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/3/2017. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

JAIME ECHEVARRIA,

Case No. 16-cv-04041-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

AEROTEK, INC.,
Defendant.

[Re: ECF 32, 38]

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO RELATE CASES; AND
DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE
REPLY BRIEF

12
13

Defendant Aerotek, Inc. has filed an administrative motion asking this Court to relate two

14

putative class actions, Echevarria v. Aerotek, Inc., No. 16-cv-04041-BLF (the present case), and

15

Dang v. Allegis Group, Inc., No. 16-cv-06259-JD. Although only the motion and opposition

16

briefs are expressly authorized by Civil Local Rule 7-11, the Court in the exercise of its discretion

17

has considered all of the briefing submitted by the parties, including the motion, ECF 32; the

18

opposition briefs filed by the plaintiffs in both Echevarria and Dang, ECF 35, 36; Aerotek’s reply

19

brief, ECF 37; Echevarria’s motion to strike the reply brief, ECF 38; Dang’s objections to the

20

reply brief, ECF 39; and Aerotek’s opposition to Echevarria’s motion to strike, ECF 41. The

21

motion to strike the reply brief is DENIED.

22

“An action is related to another when: (1) The actions concern substantially the same

23

parties, property, transaction or event; and (2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly

24

burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted

25

before different Judges.” Civ. L.R. 3-12(a). Those requirements are not satisfied here. In

26

Echevarria, the plaintiff seeks to represent a class of temporary service employees who were hired

27

by Aerotek, were required by Aerotek to attend mandatory orientation meetings, and were not paid

28

for attending those meetings. In Dang, the plaintiff seeks to represent a class of temporary service

1

employees who were jointly employed by Aerotek and its parent company, Allegis Group, Inc.,

2

participated in at least one telephonic or in-person interview with a client of Aerotek/Allegis, and

3

were not compensated for that interview time. Those putative classes are distinct and the two

4

cases seek compensation based on different sets of facts. The cases are not related simply because

5

they both assert wage and hour claims and they both name Aerotek as a defendant.

6

The administrative motion to relate Echevarria and Dang is DENIED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: January 3, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2