Fuentes v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. et al

Filing 4

ORDER on Motion to Transfer. Case transferred to District of Central District of California. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 12/08/2017. (ajs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ELIZABETH FUENTES, individually,
and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated,

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

Case No.: 3:17-cv-2178-CAB-(NLS)
ORDER ON MOTION TO
TRANSFER
[Doc. No. 3]

Plaintiff,
v.
MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES,
INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES
1 through 50 inclusive,
Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Transfer Case to
the Central District of California Pursuant to the First-to-File Rule. [Doc. No. 3.] For the
reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the joint motion.
On October 24, 2017, Plaintiff Elizabeth Fuentes filed a putative class action
complaint against Defendant in the Southern District of California (the “Fuentes Action” )
alleging various wage and hour claims against the Defendant, including failure to pay
overtime and minimum wages and related claims, along with a claim for violation of the
Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). [Doc. No. 1.]

28
1
3:17-cv-2178-CAB-(NLS)

1

On January 15, 2016, Plaintiff Maria Duran filed a putative class action complaint

2

(the “Duran Action”) against Defendant in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging a single

3

cause of action for violation of PAGA. Defendant removed the action to the Central

4

District of California on February 9, 2017. See Case No. 2:17-cv-01072-AB-E, Doc. No.

5

1. Subsequently, on August 23, 2017, a Third Amended Complaint was filed in the Duran

6

Action. The third amended complaint alleges putative class claims against Defendant for

7

failure to pay minimum wages, overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods,

8

violation of Labor Code sections 201-203, unfair competition, and a PAGA claim. See id.

9

at Doc. No. 17. On October 27, 2017, Plaintiff Duran filed a notice of pendency of other

10

actions with the Central District, informing the Court of the related Fuentes Action. [Doc

11

No. 3 at 6-8.]

12

After becoming aware of the similarities between their suits, Plaintiffs Fuentes and

13

Duran agreed to consolidate their cases and “request transfer of this case to the Central

14

District under Case Number. 2:17-cv-01072 because the actions are related within the

15

meaning of Local Civil Rule 40.le and g.” [Doc. No. 3 at 3:27-4:3.] Further, the parties in

16

the Fuentes Action stipulated, agreed and jointly moved that it should be transferred in its

17

entirety to the United States District Court for the Central District of California pursuant

18

to the first-to-file rule so that it can be consolidated with the Duran Action. [Id. at 3-4.]

19

Under the first-to-file rule district courts have discretion to dismiss, stay, or transfer

20

a case to another district. Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94-95. (9th

21

Cir. 1982). The rule “recognize[s] [the] doctrine of federal comity which permits a district

22

court to decline jurisdiction over an action when a complaint involving the same parties

23

and issues has already been filed in another district.” Id. However, it is “not a rigid or

24

inflexible rule to be mechanically applied but rather to be applied with a view to the dictates

25

of sound judicial administration.” Id. at 95. In deciding whether to apply the first-to-file

26

rule, courts analyze three factors, namely: “the chronology of the lawsuits, similarity of the

27

parties, and similarity of issues.” Kohn Law Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc., 787

28

F.3d 1237, 1240 (9th Circuit). If the rule applies, the court in which the second suit was
2
3:17-cv-2178-CAB-(NLS)

1

filed may transfer, stay or dismiss the proceeding in order to allow the court in which the

2

first suit was filed to decide whether to try the case. Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc.,

3

946 F.2d 622, 628-29 (9th Cir. 1991).

4

Upon consideration of the factors to be contemplated in deciding whether to apply

5

the first to file rule, the Court finds they weigh in favor of transfer of the Fuentes Action

6

to the Central District. Here, Plaintiff Duran filed her lawsuit over a year before Plaintiff

7

Fuentes, with the governing complaint in the Central District being filed only a couple of

8

months before the complaint filed in the Fuentes Action. Furthermore, Plaintiff Fuentes

9

stipulation to join the Central District suit will result in all parties being present in the

10

Duran Action. Additionally, the action in the Central District will resolve the myriad of

11

related, if not identical, labor and employment issues raised in both actions.

12

In light of the above, and the parties in the Fuentes action joining in the current

13

motion, the Court chooses to apply the first-to-file rule. According, the Court GRANTS

14

the joint motion and TRANSFERS this action to the Central District. Upon transfer, the

15

parties may request permission from the Honorable Andre Birotte Jr., to consolidate this

16

matter with the Duran action.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: December 8, 2017

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
3:17-cv-2178-CAB-(NLS)