Mazzantini v. Rite Aid Corporation et al

Filing 26

Judge Michael A. Ponsor: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. As follows: Defendants Motion to Transfer (Dkt. No. 5 ) is hereby ALLOWED. The clerk is ordered to arrange for the transfer of this case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ROBIN MAZZANTINI, Individually
and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff
v.
RITE AID CORPORATION, ET AL.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. NO. 11-cv-30172-MAP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER
(Dkt. No. 5)
December 15, 2011
PONSOR, U.S.D.J.
In this action, Plaintiff Robin Mazzantini,
representing herself and a class of Massachusetts
plaintiffs, alleges that Defendants violated Mass. Gen. Laws
ch. 159, §§ 148 and 150, and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151, §§ 1A
and 1B, by denying her proper wages, including overtime
compensation, when she worded as an assistant store manager.
Defendants have moved to transfer this case to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, where Ms. Mazzantini has for nearly two years
been a plaintiff in a parallel action pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), making exactly the same claims
under federal law that she offers before this court under
state law.

The lawsuit in Pennsylvania, Craig v. Rite Aid

Corporation, et al., C.A. 08-02317-JEJ, was filed in January

of 2009.

Ms. Mazzantini affirmatively “opted in” to the

Craig litigation in March of 2010 and became a plaintiff in
that case at that time.

The case before this court was

filed fifteen months after Ms. Mazzantini joined the Craig
litigation.
This court will allow Defendants’ Motion to Transfer
under the well-recognized “first filed” rule.

The First

Circuit has recognized the “obvious concerns” that arise
“when actions involving similar subject matter are pending
in different federal district courts: wasted resources
because of piecemeal litigation, the possibility of
conflicting judgments, and a general concern that the courts
may unduly interfere with each other’s affairs.”

TPM

Holdings, Inc., v. Intra-Gold Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 1, 4
(1st Cir. 1996).

The First Circuit has emphasized that

where “the overlap between the two suits is nearly complete,
the usual practice is for the court that first had
jurisdiction to resolve the issues and the other side to
defer.”

Id. at 4 (citations omitted).

The “first filed”

rule may be ignored when the two courts are addressing “very
different issues,” Id., but that is not the case here.
Significantly, two other district courts have already
transferred cases involving opt-in plaintiffs in the Craig
litigation who have filed independent state law claims in
-2-

different districts.

Fisher v. Rite Aid Corp., Civ. A. RDB-

09-1909, 2010 WL 2332101 (D. Md. June 8, 2010), and Hough v.
Thrifty Payless, Inc. d/b/a Rite Aid, 3:11-CV-05347-RBL
(Dkt. 32) (W. D. Wash., November 8, 2011).
Here, there are no special circumstances justifying an
exception to the “first filed” rule.
action are virtually identical.

The two causes of

The evidence to be offered

by both sides with regard to liability is not only virtually
but absolutely identical.

Minor differences in potential

damage relief between the FLSA and the Massachusetts state
labor laws are insignificant for purposes of this analysis.
Discovery is being coordinated through the same attorneys
nationwide and will not unduly burden Plaintiffs in this
case.

The Middle District of Pennsylvania is entirely

capable of addressing the Massachusetts state law claims
raised here.

The claim by Plaintiff that she would be

inconvenienced by having to travel to Pennsylvania rings
hollow, given that she herself opted into the Craig
litigation in Pennsylvania as a plaintiff long before she
even filed this lawsuit.

The simple fact is that this is

precisely the kind of case that the First Circuit has,
understandably, encouraged district courts to transfer to
avoid the waste and mess that is inevitable when two
district courts try to adjudicate essentially the same
-3-

claims.
In rendering this ruling, the court is well aware that
the presiding judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania
has dismissed the Fisher case on the ground that the
simultaneous maintenance of an FLSA action and a state law
wage claim brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 generates an
incompatibility that requires dismissal of the state law
claim.

Fisher v. Rite Aid Corp., 764 F. Supp.2d 700, 705-

706 (M.D. Pa. 2011).

It is possible that the judge in the

Middle District of Pennsylvania will make the same ruling in
this case.

The court’s ruling in the Fisher case is

currently before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and a
decision by that court may clarify the law in this area.
Nevertheless, the mere fact that the judge in the “first
filed” district may dismiss a case cannot provide a basis
for retaining the case in what Plaintiff may hope is a more
receptive forum.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to
Transfer (Dkt. No. 5) is hereby ALLOWED.

The clerk is

ordered to arrange for the transfer of this case to the
Middle District of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg.
It is So Ordered.
/s/ Michael A. Ponsor
MICHAEL A. PONSOR
U. S. District Judge
-4-