24 Hour Fitness USA v. Ricci (Duncan)
Filing
16
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. It is recommended that 9 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Tiffany Ricci (Duncan) be GRANTED and 1 MOTION to Compel filed by 24 Hour Fitness USA be DENIED. Objections to F&R due by 7/9/2012 Signed by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on 6/21/2012. (JDH, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION
24 HOUR FITNESS USA, INC.,
a California Corporation dba
24 HOUR FITNESS,
Petitioner,
vs.
TIFFANY RICCI (DUNCAN),
Respondent.
)
)
) CV 11-140-BLG-RFC-CSO
)
)
FINDINGS AND
)
RECOMMENDATIONS OF
) U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (“24 Hour”) seeks to compel
arbitration in Montana of Respondent’s claims against it under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. Pet. to Compel Arbitration
(Court Doc. 1). Respondent moves to dismiss 24 Hour’s petition to compel
arbitration because, among other reasons, attempts by Respondent to have the
claims against 24 Hour arbitrated have been, and presently are, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. Court Docs. 9 (motion to
dismiss) and 10 (brief supporting motion to dismiss).
The Court has reviewed all papers that the parties filed in support of their
respective positions. Having done so, and for the reasons that follow, the Court
1
recommends that 24 Hour’s petition be denied and that Respondent’s motion to
dismiss without prejudice be granted.
I.
BACKGROUND
This matter’s background is well-documented in the record and is well-
known to the parties. See, e.g., Court Doc. 11-8 (Beauperthuy, et al. v. 24 Hour
Fitness USA, Inc., et al., 3:06-cv-00715-SC, Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Mtn. To
Compel Arbitration (Doc. 457 therein)) at 2-4. The Court, therefore, will not
repeat it here.
The crux of the dispute is that 24 Hour wishes to arbitrate Respondent’s
claims in Montana, while Respondent wishes to arbitrate the claims in the Northern
District of California. 24 Hour alternatively seeks a stay of this action pending a
decision in the Northern District of California respecting venue for the arbitration.
The U.S. District Court for the North District of California has been presiding over
aspects of this dispute since February 1, 2006, when a collective action alleging
FLSA violations against 24 Hour was filed.
For purposes of this Court’s discussion and the conclusion reached below,
the Court notes that Respondent, on December 5, 2011, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California a petition to compel arbitration. Court
Doc. 11-2. Three days later, on December 8, 2011, 24 Hour filed its petition in this
Court. Court Doc. 1. A week later, on December 15, 2011, Respondent filed in
2
the Northern District of California action a motion for preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin 24 Hour’s prosecution of this District of Montana action. See
Court Doc. 11 at ¶ 10(x). On December 30, 2011, 24 Hour filed in the Northern
District of California a Motion to Transfer Venue of that action to the District of
Montana. There has been as yet no ruling on those motions.
II.
DISCUSSION
“[F]ederal comity ... permits a district court to decline jurisdiction over an
action when a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been
filed in another district.” Pacesetter Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93,
94-95 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). This so-called “first to file” rule generally
promotes efficiency for courts and litigants and eliminates the risk of inconsistent
decisions that may result from litigation of identical claims between identical
parties in different federal courts. The Ninth Circuit stated in Pacesetter:
Normally sound judicial administration would indicate that when two
identical actions are filed in courts of concurrent jurisdiction, the court
which first acquired jurisdiction should try the lawsuit and no purpose
would be served by proceeding with a second action. However, this
“first to file” rule is not a rigid or inflexible rule to be mechanically
applied, but rather is to be applied with a view to the dictates of sound
judicial administration. As we stated in Church of Scientology,
[T]he “first to file” rule normally serves the purpose of
promoting efficiency well and should not be disregarded
lightly. Circumstances and modern judicial reality,
however, may demand that we follow a different
approach from time to time ....
3
Pacesetter, 678 F.2d at 95 (quoting Church of Scientology of California v. United
States Department of the Army, 611 F.2d 738, 750 (9th Cir. 1979)).
Here, it is undisputed that Respondent filed the action in the Northern
District of California before 24 Hour filed this Montana action. Also, there is no
doubt that the parties and issues are the same in the two cases. The Northern
District of California is much more familiar with the parties’ disputes than is this
Court. Thus, the first- to-file rule, and interests of federal comity and sound
judicial efficiency, compel the conclusion that Respondent’s motion to dismiss
should be granted.
The Court’s conclusion is bolstered by persuasive authority from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona. The Arizona federal court, in two cases
with circumstances nearly identical to those before this Court – 24 Hour Fitness
USA, Inc. v. Lisa Gasteiger, CV 11-2420-PHX-ROS, and 24 Hour Fitness USA,
Inc. v. Tyler Gossett, CV 11-2421-PHX-ROS – applied the first-to-file rule in
dismissing the cases. The court found in both cases “no set of circumstances
where the present petition to compel arbitration is necessary; either the earlier filed
petition will be transferred to Arizona or the present petition will be enjoined by
the Northern District of California.” See Court Doc. 11-32 (emphasis omitted).
The same reasoning applies with equal force to this case.
4
For the same reasons, the Court declines to recommend a stay. The
recommendation here for dismissal without prejudice promotes judicial efficiency
while not compromising the parties’ rights.
III.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that 24 Hour’s petition to
compel arbitration (Court Doc. 1) be DENIED and Respondent’s motion to dismiss
without prejudice (Court Doc. 9) be GRANTED.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of
the Findings and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge upon the
parties. The parties are advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, any objections to
the findings and recommendations must be filed with the Clerk of Court and copies
served on opposing counsel within fourteen (14) days after service hereof, or
objection is waived.
DATED this 21st day of June, 2012.
/s/ Carolyn S. Ostby
United States Magistrate Judge
5
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?