1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EVAN POTTER, individually and on Lead Case No.: 25-cv-3286-AJB-MSB behalf of himself and all others similarly 12 Consolidated with: situated, Case No.: 26-cv-2440-AJB-MSB 13 Case No.: 26-cv-2443-AJB-MSB Plaintiffs, 14 v. ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION 15 TO CONSOLIDATE CALIFORNIA FINE WINE & SPIRITS 16 LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, (Doc. No. 20) 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiffs Evan Potter and Khang Nguyen (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant California 20 Fine Wine and Spirits, LLC (“Defendant”), jointly move to consolidate the following three 21 actions: (1) Evan Potter v. California Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC, Case No. 25-cv-3286- 22 AJB-MSB (the “Potter Action”); (2) Khang Nguyen v. California Fine Wine & Spirits, 23 LLC, Case No. 26-cv-2440-AJB-MSB (the “Nguyen PAGA Action”); and (3) Khang 24 Nguyen v. California Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC, Case No. 26-cv-2443-AJB-MSB (the 25 “Nguyen Class Action”) (collectively, “Related Actions”) under Rule 42(a) of the Federal 26 Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 20.) For the reasons provided below, the Court 27 GRANTS the Joint Motion. 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 A. Procedural Background 3 Plaintiff Evan Potter filed his Complaint in San Diego Superior Court on 4 September 10, 2025, alleging class action claims for violations of California’s Labor Code. 5 (Potter, Doc. No. 1-2 at 5–23.) On October 24, 2025, Potter filed a First Amended 6 Complaint (“FAC”) adding a claim under the Private Attorneys’ General Act (“PAGA”). 7 (Potter, Doc. No. 1-2 at 31–52 (“Potter FAC”).) Defendant removed the matter to the 8 United States District Court for the Southern District of California on November 24, 2025. 9 (Potter, Doc. No. 1.) 10 The Nguyen PAGA Action was filed on January 2, 2025, in the Superior Court of 11 California, County of Los Angeles. (Nguyen PAGA Action, Doc. No. 1 at 16–39 (“Nguyen 12 PAGA Compl.”).) On February 11, 2026, Defendant removed the Nguyen PAGA Action 13 to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. (Nguyen PAGA 14 Action, Doc. No. 1 at 2–12.) On April 15, 2026, the parties jointly moved to transfer the 15 Nguyen PAGA Action to the Southern District of California. (Nguyen PAGA Action, Doc. 16 No. 14.) The court granted the joint motion and the matter was transferred to the Southern 17 District of California. (Nguyen PAGA Action, Doc. Nos. 15–16.) On April 29, 2026, this 18 matter was transferred to the undersigned pursuant to Civil Local Rule 40.1 (the “Low- 19 Number Rule”). (Nguyen PAGA Action, Doc. No. 19.) 20 The Nguyen Class Action was filed on October 30, 2025, in the Superior Court of 21 California, County of Los Angeles. (Nguyen Class Action, Doc. No. 1-1 (“Nguyen Class 22 Action Compl.”).) On December 19, 2025, Defendant removed the Nguyen Class Action 23 to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. (Nguyen Class 24 Action, Doc. No. 1.) On April 15, 2026, the parties jointly moved to transfer the Nguyen 25 Class Action to the Southern District of California. (Nguyen Class Action, Doc. No. 17.) 26 The court granted the joint motion, and the matter was transferred to the Southern District 27 of California. (Nguyen Class Action, Doc. Nos. 18–19.) On April 29, 2026, this matter was 28 1 transferred to the undersigned pursuant to the Low-Number Rule. (Nguyen Class Action, 2 Doc. No. 22.) 3 B. Factual Background 4 Plaintiffs allege to have worked for Defendant as hourly, non-exempt employees. 5 (See Potter FAC; Nguyen PAGA Compl; Nguyen Class Action Compl.) Plaintiffs allege 6 that Defendant violated the California Labor Code and engaged in unfair business practices 7 stemming from its purported failure to pay overtime compensation, provide meal breaks 8 and rest periods, pay minimum wage, provide accurate wage statements, maintain accurate 9 time and payroll records, reimburse necessary business-related expenses, and pay reporting 10 wages. (Id.) Plaintiffs both seek to represent a class of all current and former non-exempt 11 employees who worked for Defendants in California at any time from four years prior to 12 the filing of their respective actions. (Id.) 13 II. LEGAL STANDARD 14 “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court 15 may . . . consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “The district court has broad 16 discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Invs. Rsh. Co. 17 v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In exercising its 18 broad discretion to order consolidation, a district court “weighs the saving of time and 19 effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it 20 would cause.” Huene v. U.S.,743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984), on reh’g, 753 F.2d 1081 21 (9th Cir. 1984) 22 III. DISCUSSION 23 Having reviewed the complaints in the Potter Action, the Nguyen Class Action, and 24 the Nguyen PAGA Action, the Court finds consolidation appropriate under Federal Rule 25 of Civil Procedure 42(a). The Related Actions involve common questions of fact and law. 26 The three complaints involve the same defendant, nearly identical proposed classes, many 27 of the same factual allegations, and substantially overlapping causes of action under 28 1 California’s Labor Code and PAGA. Given the similar factual and legal issues, 2 consolidation of the three cases will advance the interests of judicial economy. 3 The benefit to judicial convenience of consolidating these actions outweighs the 4 potential for any inconvenience, delay, or expense that consolidation could cause, because 5 consolidation would avoid duplicative discovery and proceedings in these cases that are 6 based on nearly identical allegations, share common issues of law and fact, are in similar 7 stages of development, and are pending in the same venue. See Huene, 743 F.2d at 704. 8 Moreover, courts in this circuit generally find that related class actions and PAGA 9 suits are suitable for consolidation. See, e.g., Martinez v. Sunnova Energy Corp., No. 2:24- 10 CV-06346-MRA-MAR, 2025 WL 732350, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2025) (subsequent 11 history omitted) (finding that although consolidation of the class action and PAGA claims 12 may cause minimal delay, absent any showing of prejudice or confusion, “such delay does 13 not outweigh the efficiencies realized through consolidation”); Blackwell v. Com. 14 Refrigeration Specialists, Inc., No. 2-20-CV-01968-KJM-CKD, 2021 WL 2634501, at *6 15 (E.D. Cal. June 25, 2021) (consolidating PAGA and CAFA actions where “both cases 16 involve the same parties” and “the set of claims in one case is a near mirror of the other”); 17 Gong-Chun v. Aetna Inc., No. 1:09-CV-01995-SKO, 2012 WL 2872788, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 18 July 12, 2012) (observing that PAGA and class actions were suitable for consolidation 19 where the aggrieved employees in the former were also the putative class members in the 20 latter, and the PAGA penalties sought “were necessarily dependent upon proof of the 21 violations of the Labor Code alleged in” the class action); Ariola v. Raytheon CA Techs. 22 Corp., No. CV234664MWFAGRX, 2023 WL 5764296, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2023) 23 (finding that unopposed consolidation of PAGA suit and class action “will aid judicial and 24 party efficiency” and “help avoid delay, confusion, and prejudice” because “the two actions 25 are based on the same underlying facts”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EVAN POTTER, individually and on Lead Case No.: 25-cv-3286-AJB-MSB behalf of himself and all others similarly 12 Consolidated with: situated, Case No.: 26-cv-2440-AJB-MSB 13 Case No.: 26-cv-2443-AJB-MSB Plaintiffs, 14 v. ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION 15 TO CONSOLIDATE CALIFORNIA FINE WINE & SPIRITS 16 LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, (Doc. No. 20) 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiffs Evan Potter and Khang Nguyen (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant California 20 Fine Wine and Spirits, LLC (“Defendant”), jointly move to consolidate the following three 21 actions: (1) Evan Potter v. California Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC, Case No. 25-cv-3286- 22 AJB-MSB (the “Potter Action”); (2) Khang Nguyen v. California Fine Wine & Spirits, 23 LLC, Case No. 26-cv-2440-AJB-MSB (the “Nguyen PAGA Action”); and (3) Khang 24 Nguyen v. California Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC, Case No. 26-cv-2443-AJB-MSB (the 25 “Nguyen Class Action”) (collectively, “Related Actions”) under Rule 42(a) of the Federal 26 Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 20.) For the reasons provided below, the Court 27 GRANTS the Joint Motion. 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 A. Procedural Background 3 Plaintiff Evan Potter filed his Complaint in San Diego Superior Court on 4 September 10, 2025, alleging class action claims for violations of California’s Labor Code. 5 (Potter, Doc. No. 1-2 at 5–23.) On October 24, 2025, Potter filed a First Amended 6 Complaint (“FAC”) adding a claim under the Private Attorneys’ General Act (“PAGA”). 7 (Potter, Doc. No. 1-2 at 31–52 (“Potter FAC”).) Defendant removed the matter to the 8 United States District Court for the Southern District of California on November 24, 2025. 9 (Potter, Doc. No. 1.) 10 The Nguyen PAGA Action was filed on January 2, 2025, in the Superior Court of 11 California, County of Los Angeles. (Nguyen PAGA Action, Doc. No. 1 at 16–39 (“Nguyen 12 PAGA Compl.”).) On February 11, 2026, Defendant removed the Nguyen PAGA Action 13 to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. (Nguyen PAGA 14 Action, Doc. No. 1 at 2–12.) On April 15, 2026, the parties jointly moved to transfer the 15 Nguyen PAGA Action to the Southern District of California. (Nguyen PAGA Action, Doc. 16 No. 14.) The court granted the joint motion and the matter was transferred to the Southern 17 District of California. (Nguyen PAGA Action, Doc. Nos. 15–16.) On April 29, 2026, this 18 matter was transferred to the undersigned pursuant to Civil Local Rule 40.1 (the “Low- 19 Number Rule”). (Nguyen PAGA Action, Doc. No. 19.) 20 The Nguyen Class Action was filed on October 30, 2025, in the Superior Court of 21 California, County of Los Angeles. (Nguyen Class Action, Doc. No. 1-1 (“Nguyen Class 22 Action Compl.”).) On December 19, 2025, Defendant removed the Nguyen Class Action 23 to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. (Nguyen Class 24 Action, Doc. No. 1.) On April 15, 2026, the parties jointly moved to transfer the Nguyen 25 Class Action to the Southern District of California. (Nguyen Class Action, Doc. No. 17.) 26 The court granted the joint motion, and the matter was transferred to the Southern District 27 of California. (Nguyen Class Action, Doc. Nos. 18–19.) On April 29, 2026, this matter was 28 1 transferred to the undersigned pursuant to the Low-Number Rule. (Nguyen Class Action, 2 Doc. No. 22.) 3 B. Factual Background 4 Plaintiffs allege to have worked for Defendant as hourly, non-exempt employees. 5 (See Potter FAC; Nguyen PAGA Compl; Nguyen Class Action Compl.) Plaintiffs allege 6 that Defendant violated the California Labor Code and engaged in unfair business practices 7 stemming from its purported failure to pay overtime compensation, provide meal breaks 8 and rest periods, pay minimum wage, provide accurate wage statements, maintain accurate 9 time and payroll records, reimburse necessary business-related expenses, and pay reporting 10 wages. (Id.) Plaintiffs both seek to represent a class of all current and former non-exempt 11 employees who worked for Defendants in California at any time from four years prior to 12 the filing of their respective actions. (Id.) 13 II. LEGAL STANDARD 14 “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court 15 may . . . consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “The district court has broad 16 discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Invs. Rsh. Co. 17 v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In exercising its 18 broad discretion to order consolidation, a district court “weighs the saving of time and 19 effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it 20 would cause.” Huene v. U.S.,743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984), on reh’g, 753 F.2d 1081 21 (9th Cir. 1984) 22 III. DISCUSSION 23 Having reviewed the complaints in the Potter Action, the Nguyen Class Action, and 24 the Nguyen PAGA Action, the Court finds consolidation appropriate under Federal Rule 25 of Civil Procedure 42(a). The Related Actions involve common questions of fact and law. 26 The three complaints involve the same defendant, nearly identical proposed classes, many 27 of the same factual allegations, and substantially overlapping causes of action under 28 1 California’s Labor Code and PAGA. Given the similar factual and legal issues, 2 consolidation of the three cases will advance the interests of judicial economy. 3 The benefit to judicial convenience of consolidating these actions outweighs the 4 potential for any inconvenience, delay, or expense that consolidation could cause, because 5 consolidation would avoid duplicative discovery and proceedings in these cases that are 6 based on nearly identical allegations, share common issues of law and fact, are in similar 7 stages of development, and are pending in the same venue. See Huene, 743 F.2d at 704. 8 Moreover, courts in this circuit generally find that related class actions and PAGA 9 suits are suitable for consolidation. See, e.g., Martinez v. Sunnova Energy Corp., No. 2:24- 10 CV-06346-MRA-MAR, 2025 WL 732350, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2025) (subsequent 11 history omitted) (finding that although consolidation of the class action and PAGA claims 12 may cause minimal delay, absent any showing of prejudice or confusion, “such delay does 13 not outweigh the efficiencies realized through consolidation”); Blackwell v. Com. 14 Refrigeration Specialists, Inc., No. 2-20-CV-01968-KJM-CKD, 2021 WL 2634501, at *6 15 (E.D. Cal. June 25, 2021) (consolidating PAGA and CAFA actions where “both cases 16 involve the same parties” and “the set of claims in one case is a near mirror of the other”); 17 Gong-Chun v. Aetna Inc., No. 1:09-CV-01995-SKO, 2012 WL 2872788, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 18 July 12, 2012) (observing that PAGA and class actions were suitable for consolidation 19 where the aggrieved employees in the former were also the putative class members in the 20 latter, and the PAGA penalties sought “were necessarily dependent upon proof of the 21 violations of the Labor Code alleged in” the class action); Ariola v. Raytheon CA Techs. 22 Corp., No. CV234664MWFAGRX, 2023 WL 5764296, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2023) 23 (finding that unopposed consolidation of PAGA suit and class action “will aid judicial and 24 party efficiency” and “help avoid delay, confusion, and prejudice” because “the two actions 25 are based on the same underlying facts”). 26 Accordingly, having reviewed the facts and circumstances set forth in the parties’ 27 joint motion, and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion to 28 Consolidate. 1 |}IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons the Joint Motion to Consolidate (Doc. No. 20) is 3 || GRANTED. The Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 4 1. The following cases are hereby consolidated for all purposes under Case No. 5 || 25-cv-3286-AJB-MSB (the “Consolidated Action’’): Evan Potter v. California Fine Wine 6 || & Spirits, LLC, Case No. 25-cv-3286-AJB-MSB; Khang Nguyen v. California Fine Wine 7 || & Spirits, LLC, Case No. 26-cv-2440-AJB-MSB; and Khang Nguyen v. California Fine 8 || Wine & Spirits, LLC, Case No. 26-cv-2443-AJB-MSB. 9 2. All future documents filed in connection with the Consolidated Action must 10 || be filed under Lead Case No. 3:25-cv-03286-AJB-MSB, which is designated as the “Lead 11 || Case.” All documents previously filed and/or served in the Related Actions are deemed a 12 || part of the record in the Consolidated Action. In all subsequent filings, the case number 13 || must appear as follows: 14 LEAD CASE No.: 25-cv-3286-AJB-MSB 15 Consolidated With: Case No.: 26-cv-2443-AJB-MSB 16 Case No.: 26-cv-2440-AJB-MSB 17 3. Plaintiffs must file a consolidated complaint no later than May 26, 2026. 18 |! Defendant must answer or otherwise respond to the consolidated complaint no later than 19 |! June 16, 2026, ! 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2! Dated: May 4, 2026 22 Hon. Anthony J. attaglia 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 The Court reminds the parties to fully review and comply with the undersigned’s Civil Case Procedures prior to filing any noticed motions. See J. Battaglia Civ. Case Proc. § III.