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)

Download PDF
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

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?