Azizpor v. Lowes Home Centers, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: June 9, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00452
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID AZIZPOR, et al., Case No.: 23cv452-LL-DDL 23cv461-LL-DDL 12 Plaintiffs,

13 v. ORDER GRANTING AMENDED JOINT MOTION TO 14 LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 44] 16 17 18 This matter is before the Court on the Amended Joint Stipulation and Motion of 19 Plaintiffs David Azizpor, Artemio Angel, Daniel West, Edward Shubin, Robert Gregory, 20 and Ronald Bluhm and Defendant Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC (“Lowe’s) to consolidate a 21 related action (Rodriguez et al. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, No. 23cv461-LL-DDL) 22 (“Rodriguez”), designate a lead case, grant Plaintiffs leave to file a First Amended 23 Complaint (“FAC”) in the consolidated action, and set a deadline for Defendant to file a 24 responsive pleading to the FAC, pursuant to Rule 42(a) and Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules 25 of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 44. 26 I. BACKGROUND 27 On April 20, 2022, Defendant removed a class action case originally filed in the 28 Superior Court of California for the Count of San Diego, Merhi et al. v. Lowe’s Home 1 Center, LLC (No. 22cv545-LL-DDL) (“Merhi”) alleging claims under the Fair Labor 2 Standards Act (“FLSA”), the California Labor Code, the California Business and 3 Professions Code, and the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). 4 See 3:22-cv-00545-LL-MDD, ECF No. 1. 5 In Merhi, the individual claims of all plaintiffs other than Jeffrey Graham and Omar 6 Reyes have been stayed and submitted to arbitration at this time—with the Court retaining 7 jurisdiction solely to confirm or vacate any arbitration award—and only the non-individual 8 PAGA claims of certain Plaintiffs remains pending before the Court. See 3:22-cv-00545- 9 LL-MDD, ECF Nos. 22, 35, 42, 43. 10 Also in Merhi, Defendant Lowe’s moved to compel Merhi plaintiffs Graham and 11 Reyes to arbitrate their claims, and to dismiss or stay the non-individual (i.e., 12 representative) portion of the PAGA claims on September 16, 2022. See 3:22-cv-00545- 13 LL-MDD, ECF Nos. 23, 42, 43. 14 This case (“Azizpor”) was initially filed in the Northern District of California on 15 January 6, 2023, alleging violations of the California Labor Code, the FLSA, and the 16 California Business and Professions Code by Defendant Lowe’s. See ECF No. 1 (No. 3:23- 17 cv-85, N.D. Cal.). 18 On January 31, 2023, plaintiffs in Rodriguez filed their case in the Northern District 19 of California, bringing similar claims to those brought in Merhi and Azizpor against 20 Defendant Lowe’s. See No. 3:23-cv-00461-LL-DDL, ECF No. 1 (No. 3:23-cv-453, N.D. 21 Cal.). Plaintiffs in Rodriguez filed an amended complaint on February 16, 2023, adding an 22 additional plaintiff and asserting claims identical to those in Azizpor. Id., ECF No. 15. 23 On February 22, 2023, the District Court for the Northern District of California 24 related Azizpor and Rodriguez (the “Related Actions”). See ECF No. 26; No. 3:23-cv- 25 00461, ECF No. 16. 26 On March 10, 2023, the Related Actions were transferred to the Southern District of 27 California based on the pending earlier case in this district, Merhi, and the joint stipulation 28 and motion of all parties in the Related Actions to transfer the cases to this district. ECF 1 No. 33; No. 3:23-cv-00461, ECF No. 25. The orders transferring the Related Actions 2 further vacated pending deadlines and stayed Defendant’s deadlines to file responsive 3 pleadings in the Related Actions. Id. 4 II. LEGAL STANDARD 5 Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs consolidation, 6 provides that: “[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the 7 court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) 8 consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); see also In re Oreck Corp. Halo Vacuum & Air Purified Mktg. & 10 Sales Pracs. Litig., 282 F.R.D. 486, 490 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (“To determine whether to 11 consolidate, a court weighs the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for 12 delay, confusion, and prejudice caused by consolidation” (internal quotation omitted)). The 13 Court has broad discretion in ruling on a request for consolidation. Garity v. APWU Nat’l 14 Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Invs. Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. 15 for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989)); see also Hall v. Hall, 138 S. 16 Ct. 1118, 1131 (2018) (“District courts enjoy substantial discretion in deciding whether 17 and to what extent to consolidate cases.”). 18 III. DISCUSSION 19 The Parties in this action submit that the Related Actions should be consolidated into 20 a single proceeding because they involve the exact same facts and circumstances, share 21 many of the same causes of action, and would require the same legal analysis. ECF No. 44 22 at 4. The Parties assert that consolidation would increase judicial efficiency because it 23 would avoid duplicative evidence and inconsistent adjudication, preclude waste, and 24 alleviate potential burdens to the Court and the Parties. Id. The Parties agree that Merhi 25 should not be consolidated with the Related Actions at this time due to the pending motion 26 in that case, and that Azizpor should be designated as the lead case in the consolidated 27 action. Id. The Parties further agree that Plaintiffs may file a FAC that merges the causes 28 of action in the Related Actions such that it becomes the operative complaint in the 1 consolidated proceeding, and that such stipulation shall not limit or affect Defendant’s 2 ability to file a motion in response to the FAC, including a motion to dismiss or any other 3 responsive pleading. Id. at 4-5. They also agree “that the putative class and collective in 4 the FAC will be limited to non-exempt employees of Lowe’s in California who did not 5 agree to arbitrate all claims arising out of their employment with Lowe’s on an individual 6 basis (and that individuals who agreed to arbitrate their claims will be excluded from the 7 putative class and collective)[.]” Id. at 5. 8 Upon review of the motion, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that 9 consolidation is appropriate. Review of the two operative complaints show that both cases 10 are asserted against the same defendant, Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, and both allege (1) 11 violations of the FLSA for failure to pay overtime, and violations of the California Labor 12 Code and for failure to: (2) provide meal periods; (3) provide rest periods; (4) pay overtime; 13 (5) maintain accurate records; (6) pay all wages when due; (7) provide accurate, itemized 14 wage statements; (8) reimburse work expenses; (9) timely pay wages upon termination; 15 and (10) unfair business practices on behalf of the Plaintiffs and on behalf of all others 16 similarly situated. See ECF Nos. 1, 24; No. 3:23-cv-00461, ECF Nos. 15, 16. 17 IV. CONCLUSION 18 The aforementioned considerations demonstrate that consolidation is appropriate, as 19 it would allow the Court and the parties to proceed in the most efficient manner. There are 20 no indications that consolidation would cause delay, confusion, or prejudice. 21 \\\ 22 \\\ 23 \\\ 24 \\\ 25 \\\ 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 \\\ 1 Accordingly: 2 1. The Court GRANTS the Parties’ Amended Joint Motion [ECF No. 44] and 3 || consolidates the Related Actions: Azizpor et al. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, 3:23-cv- 4 ||00452 and Rodriguez et al. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, 3:23-cv-00461 and designates 5 || Azizpor as the lead case. 6 2. All further filings shall be made in Azizpor; 7 3. Plaintiffs may file a First Amended Complaint in this consolidated proceeding 8 merges the causes of action alleged in the operative complaints of the Related Actions 9 || into a single operative complaint no later than June 23, 2023; 10 4. Defendant must file a responsive pleading no later than twenty-one days after 11 || Plaintiffs file their First Amended Complaint; and 12 5. The Parties’ earlier-filed joint motion for consolidation [ECF No. 43] is 13 || DENIED AS MOOT. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 || Dated: June 9, 2023 NO 16 Qe | 17 Honorable Linda Lopez 8 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28