EID v. Michael Stapleton Associates, LTD et al

Filing 25

ORDER granting 15 Motion to Stay. Case stayed until further order from the Court. The parties shall notify the Court within seven days of the entry of judgment in any of the New York Cases. The parties shall submit a joint status report to the Court once every ninety days from the entry of this order. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 4/30/2018. (sjt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SOLIMAN EID,

Case No.: 3:17-cv-02456
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO STAY

MICHAEL STAPLETON ASSOCIATES,
LTD,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

Pending before the Court is Defendant Michael Stapleton Associates, LTD

19

(“Defendant”) motion to stay. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the Court decides

20

the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. For the foregoing reasons,

21

the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion.

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
1
3:17-cv-02456

1
2

I.

BACKGROUND
Defendant is a corporation that provides private security services. Among the

3

services offered by Defendant is bomb detection, a service that involves the use of dogs

4

trained to alert to the scent of explosives. For each bomb sniffing dog, Defendant

5

employs a handler. Handlers are responsible for handling, training, boarding, and feeding

6

the dogs.

7

On August 2, 2017, a handler employed by Defendant filed an amended class and

8

collective action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

9

Texas. (“Blackmon Complaint” [Doc. 15-2 Ex. B].) The Blackmon Complaint alleges

10

that Defendant and its Chief Executive Officer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act

11

(“FLSA”) 29 U.S.C. § 201, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226, 510, 1194, and 2698 (“PAGA”); New

12

York Codes, Rules, and Regulations § 142-2.2, New York Lab. Law §§ 191, 193, 195(3),

13

198-c(2), and 663 by failing to pay all straight and overtime wages owed, failing to pay

14

minimum wages, failing to provide itemized wage statements, and failing to reimburse

15

expenses. (Id.) The central theory of the Blackmon Complaint is that Defendant did not

16

pay its dog handlers wages for all hours spent caring for the dogs or full reimbursement

17

for the expenses stemming therefrom. On January 30, 2018 the United States District

18

Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the parties’ joint motion to transfer the

19

Blackmon case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

20

(Fugazy Decl. [Doc. 15-2] ¶ 9.)

21

On July 18, 2017, ten other individuals employed by Defendant as dog handlers

22

filed a nearly identical complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern

23

District of New York against Defendant and its CEO. (“Barret Complaint” [Doc. 15-2

24

Ex. C].) On September 20, 2017, another plaintiff filed another nearly identical

25

complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

26

against Defendant and its CEO. (“Brown Complaint” [Doc. 15-2 Ex. D].) All parties in

27

the Blackmon, Barret, and Brown cases (collectively, the “New York Cases”) intend to

28

stipulate to the consolidation of the three cases into one. (Fugazy Decl. ¶ 9.)
2
3:17-cv-02456

On February 5, 2018, Plaintiff Soliman Eid (“Eid”) filed the instant case in the

1
2

Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. (Complaint [Doc. 1-2].) Like the

3

New York Cases, Eid’s Complaint also seeks recovery against Defendant for Defendant’s

4

alleged failure to pay its dog handlers wages for all hours spent caring for the dogs and

5

full reimbursement for all expenses stemming therefrom. On February 5, 2018,

6

Defendant filed the instant motion to stay this litigation under the “First to File Rule”

7

pending resolution of the New York Cases. (Mot. [Doc. 15].) Plaintiff opposes. (Opp’n

8

[Doc. 16].)

9
10
11

II.

DISCUSSION
The power to stay proceedings stems from the Court’s inherent power to control its

12

docket. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). A stay is therefore a matter of

13

judicial discretion. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433–34 (2009). The party seeking a

14

stay bears the burden of establishing that the facts and circumstances of the case warrant

15

a stay. Id.

16

Here, Defendant seeks a stay under the First to File Rule. The First to File Rule is

17

intended to promote the efficient use of judicial resources and consistency in rulings.

18

Kohn Law Group, Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Mississippi, Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1239–40 (9th

19

Cir. 2015) (internal citations omitted.) Thus, a stay is appropriate under the First to File

20

Rule if there is (1) a prior filed complaint in another district court involving substantially

21

the same (2) parties and (3) issues. Id.

22

Plaintiff concedes that the first two factors favor a stay because the Blackmon and

23

Barret cases were filed first, Defendant is named in each case, and the proposed

24

plaintiffs’ classes are substantively identical. (Opp’n 5,6.) There is also no dispute as to

25

the fact that there is a near complete overlap on the issue of unpaid wages. (Id.) Rather,

26

the only grounds upon which Plaintiff opposes this motion to stay is that, unlike the

27

instant case, the New York cases do not “seek compensation for unreimbursed expenses

28

on behalf of California [dog handlers]. (Opp’n 5:27–6:2.)
3
3:17-cv-02456

Plaintiff’s argument is unpersuasive. It is true that the New York cases do not

1
2

include any California Labor Code § 2802 or derivative PAGA claims for failure to

3

reimburse expenses. That said, the Barrett case does allege that “[d]uring the course of

4

their employment, plaintiffs incurred significant expense … [from] housing and

5

maintaining the dogs.” (Barret Compl. ¶ 76.) For these incurred expenses, Barrett seeks

6

recovery under New York Labor Law § 198-c(2) (providing for employee recovery of

7

unreimbursed expenses from employers). (Barred Compl. ¶ 103.) That the cases seek

8

recovery for the same conduct under different statutes does not preclude a finding of

9

substantial similarity on the issues. Adoma v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 711 F. Supp. 2d

10

1142, 1149 (E.D. Cal. 2010). Under each statute, the central issue is the same: whether

11

the dog handlers incurred expenses in connection with their employment for which

12

Defendant failed to compensate them.

13

Because the New York Cases were filed first and involve the same parties and

14

substantially the same issues, the Court finds it proper to exercise its discretion and stay

15

this litigation pursuant to the First to File Rule. This result is certain to conserve scarce

16

judicial resources and ensure consistency in rulings. Further, it is unlikely to cause any

17

prejudice to Plaintiff. In the event the resolution of the New York Cases does not

18

completely resolve Plaintiff’s claims, he may then proceed with them in this Court.

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
4
3:17-cv-02456

1
2
3

CONCLUSION & ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to stay pursuant to the First to File
Rule is GRANTED as follows:

4

 This case is stayed until further order from the Court.

5

 The parties shall notify the Court within seven days of the entry of judgment in any

6
7
8

of the New York Cases.
 The parties shall submit a joint status report to the Court once every ninety days
from the entry of this order.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated: April 30, 2018

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
3:17-cv-02456