Gabriel Rubio v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GABRIEL RUBIO, Case No. 1:25-cv-00883 JLT CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE UNDER THE FIRST-TO-FILE RULE 13 v. (Doc. 17) 14 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 United Parcel Service, Inc. moves to dismiss or stay this action under the first-to-file rule, 18 citing an action pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 19 (See Doc. 17.) Gabriel Rubio opposes the motion but would not object to a transfer to the 20 Northern District of California. (See Doc. 20.) Briefing is complete (see Doc. 21), and the Court 21 found that oral arguments were not necessary (Doc. 22). 22 The first-to-file rule is a “recognized doctrine of federal comity.” Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. 23 Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 95 (9th Cir. 1982). It gives a district court discretion to dismiss, 24 transfer, or stay one case if another case with “substantially similar issues and parties was 25 previously filed in another district court.” Kohn L. Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc., 787 26 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Shalala, 125 F.3d 765, 769 27 (9th Cir. 1997). 28 UPS argues that Rubio’s allegations overlap with those in Saechao v. United Parcel 1 Service, Inc., No. 25-2431 (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 10, 2025). The Court takes judicial notice of the 2 filings in that action. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 3 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006). Like Rubio, the plaintiff in Saechao alleges UPS required 4 unpaid work of its hourly employees, deprived them of meal and rest breaks, and sent inaccurate 5 and incomplete wage statements in violation of the state’s Labor Code and Unfair Competition 6 Law. (Compare Doc. 1-2 at 8–22 with No. 25-8423 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2025), Doc. 1-2 at 3–5, 7 8–16.) Like this case, the case pending in the Northern District is a putative a class action on 8 behalf of nonexempt, hourly UPS employees. (Compare Doc. 1-2 at 3–4 with No. 25-8423 (N.D. 9 Cal. Jan. 24, 2025), Doc. 1-2 at 5–8.) 10 The Saechao case was filed and removed to federal court before Rubio filed his complaint 11 in this action. The two cases are against the same defendant, they involve many identical wage 12 and hour claims, and the proposed classes overlap greatly. They are, at the core, substantially 13 similar actions. 14 It is true as Rubio argues that they are not identical. Rubio’s proposed class may be 15 broader, as it is not limited to employees who worked in warehouses and distribution centers. 16 (Compare Doc. 1-2 at 3–4 with No. 25-8423 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2025), Doc. 1-2 at 5–8.) But the 17 classes are substantially similar, which is all that is necessary for the first-to-file rule to apply. 18 See Kohn, 787 F.3d at 1240; see also, e.g., Sermeno v. Int'l Paper Co., No. 25-01892, 2025 WL 19 4058523, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025) (applying first-to-file rule in a similar wage and hour 20 case when parties were similar but not identical); Tappin v. TForce Freight, Inc., No. 22-00322, 21 2022 WL 3567126, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2022) (same). 22 It is also true that the issues are not identical. Rubio makes allegations about 23 unreimbursed business expenses, for example. (See Doc. 1-2 at 8.) But again, it is not necessary 24 for the issues to be identical. It is enough for them to be substantially similar. See Kohn, 787 25 F.3d at 1240–41; see also, e.g., Sermeno, 2025 WL 4058523, at *3 (finding class claims 26 substantially similar in wage and hour class action); Tappin, 2022 WL 3567126, at *3 (same). 27 “The fact that this action brings additional claims does not preclude applying the first-to-file 28 rule.” Arellano v. Ulta Salon, Cosms. & Fragrance, Inc., No. 22-00639, 2022 WL 17128542, at 1 | *2(C.D. Cal. July 15, 2022). 2 The first-to-file rule therefore applies to this case. It gives a district court discretion to 3 | transfer, stay, or dismiss the later-filed case based on an assessment of what course will best 4 || preserve the parties’ and the courts’ limited resources. See Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr., 125 F.3d at 5 | 769. For this case, a transfer will avoid unnecessary delays and will permit the parties and the 6 | Northern District Court to decide how to avoid inefficiencies, inconsistent rulings, and a 7 | duplication of effort. See Tappin, 2022 WL 3567126, at *4 (transferring the later-filed action in 8 | similar circumstances); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) (governing consolidation of actions 9 | involving a common question of law or fact); N.D. Cal. Local Rule 3-12 (governing related 10 | cases). As noted, Rubio does not object to a transfer. (See Doc. 20 at 2.) 11 It is not necessary to reach UPS’s alternative arguments, nor the abstention doctrine 12 | established by the Supreme Court’s decision in Colorado River Water Conservation District v. 13 | United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). The Court expresses no opinions on those matters in this 14 | order. 15 For these reasons, the motion at Doc. 17 is GRANTED IN PART. This action is 16 | TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under 17 | the first-to-file rule. 18 19 | Iv Is SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: _July 8, 2026_ ears [Tourn 71 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28