Gomez v. WinCo Holdings, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: July 2, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02024
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HUGO GOMEZ, No. 2:23-cv-02024-TLN-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter is before the Court on Defendant WinCo Holdings, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) 18 Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion to Stay. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff Hugo Gomez 19 (“Plaintiff”) filed an opposition, and Defendant filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 15, 18.) For the reasons 20 set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and GRANTS Defendant’s 21 Motion to Stay. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 A. The Instant Action 3 This class action arises out of Defendant’s purported failure to provide its non-exempt 4 employees with wages, meals, rests, and other requirements mandated by California law. 5 Defendant is a supermarket chain based in Boise, Idaho, and operates grocery stores across the 6 United States with a distribution warehouse in Modesto, California. (ECF No. 1 at 25.) Plaintiff 7 worked for Defendant at its Modesto distribution center as a non-exempt employee until May 1, 8 2023.1 (Id. at 26.) 9 During his employment with Defendant, Plaintiff alleges Defendant committed a series of 10 California Labor Code2 violations, including: • failing to pay overtime wages for shifts longer than eight hours a day or 11 workweeks longer than forty hours; 12 • failing to pay minimum wages for all hours worked; 13 • failing to provide timely and adequate meal and rest periods; 14 • failing to provide complete and accurate earnings statements; 15 • failing to timely pay final wages upon separation from Defendant; 16 • failing to provide a safe and healthful workplace by exposing employees to radiation emissions and excessive heat; 17 • failing to provide written descriptions of quotas; and 18 • failing to notify employees of alternative workweek schedules and to provide accurate wages for the alternative workweeks.3 19 (ECF No. 1 at 29–33.) According to Plaintiff, these violations occurred as a direct result of 20 Defendant’s policies and practices. (Id. at 25.) For example, Plaintiff alleges Defendant had a 21 company-wide policy of discouraging non-exempt employees from “recording hours worked that 22 were outside of their scheduled shifts in order to limit the amount of overtime employees could 23 accrue.” (Id. at 29.) 24 25 1 The Complaint does not specify when Plaintiff began working for Defendant. 26 2 All further unspecified statutory references are to the California Labor Code. 27 3 Plaintiff alleges Defendant mandated certain alternative workweeks, meaning Plaintiff and 28 other employees would work four days a week for ten hours each day. (ECF No. 1 at 32.) 1 Plaintiff commenced this class action in the Stanislaus County Superior Court in August 2 2023, alleging ten causes of action for the purported labor code violations: (1) failure to pay 3 overtime wages in violation of §§ 510 and 1198; (2) failure to pay wages in violation of §§ 1182, 4 1194, 1197, and 1198; (3) failure to provide meal periods in violation of §§ 226.7, 512, 516, and 5 1198; (4) failure to provide rest periods in violation of §§ 226.7, 516, and 1198; (5) failure to 6 comply with § 6300 et seq. (California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973); (6) failure 7 to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements in violation of § 226(a); (7) waiting time 8 penalties pursuant to §§ 201 and 203; (8) a violation of §§ 2100 – 2104; (9) failure to pay wages 9 for alternative workweeks in violation of § 511; and (10) violations of California Business & 10 Professions Code § 17200 et seq. (unfair competition). (ECF No. 1 at 24.) Defendant timely 11 removed the action to this Court (ECF No. 1), and subsequently filed the instant motion to 12 dismiss, or in the alternative, stay the instant action pending resolution of an earlier filed action 13 alleging the same or similar claims (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff filed an opposition (ECF No. 15), and 14 Defendant filed a reply (ECF No. 18). 15 B. The Garza Action 16 Everardo Garza, Jr. (“Garza”) worked as a non-exempt employee for Defendant in 17 Modesto, CA. See Garza, Jr. v. WinCo Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01354-TLN-DB, (ECF 18 No. 2 at 24). Like Plaintiff, Garza alleges Defendant committed several labor code violations 19 pursuant to company policy. (Id. at 24–30.) In August 2020 — three years before the instant 20 action was commenced — Garza initiated a class action4 in the Stanislaus County Superior Court 21 against Defendant, alleging seven causes of action: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure 22 to pay minimum wages; (3) violations of rest periods; (4) failure to provide accurate itemized 23 wage statements; (5) wait time penalties; (6) unfair competition; and (7) civil penalties under the 24 Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (§ 2698 et seq.). (Id. at 22.) Defendant

25 4 The classes included: (1) all non-exempt employees who work or worked for Defendant in 26 California in any of its facilities during the four years immediately preceding the filing of the complaint through the date of trial; and (2) all class members who separated their employment 27 with Defendant during the three years immediately preceding the filing of the complaint through the date of trial. See Garza, Jr. v. WinCo Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01354-TLN-DB, 28 (ECF No. 2 at 30). 1 removed the action to this Court and twice moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of 2 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Id. at ECF Nos. 2, 7, 26.) The Court granted each of Defendant’s 3 motions to dismiss (id. at ECF Nos. 24, 44), and Garza, now on his second amended complaint, 4 realleges all causes of action except his first cause of action for failure to pay overtime wages (id. 5 at ECF No. 47). Defendant now moves to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to 6 state a claim and requests the Court dismiss with prejudice. (Id. at ECF No. 48.) Garza filed an 7 opposition, and Defendant filed a reply. (Id. at ECF Nos. 53, 56.) 8 On March 7, 2024, the Court found the Garza action, and several other cases pending in 9 this Court, to be related to the instant action under Local Rule 123(a). (Id. at ECF No. 60.) 10 II. FIRST-TO-FILE RULE 11 Defendant argues the Court should dismiss the instant action under the first-to-file rule in 12 light of the earlier filed Garza action. (ECF No. 13-1 at 10.) 13 A. Standard of Law 14 The first-to-file rule “allows a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an action when a 15 similar complaint has already been filed in another federal court.” Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld 16 Prod., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 623 (9th Cir. 1991). “The doctrine is designed to avoid placing an 17 unnecessary burden on the federal judiciary, and to avoid the embarrassment of conflicting 18 judgments.” Church of Scientology of California v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 611 F.2d 738, 750 (9th 19 Cir. 1979), overruled on other grounds by Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 20 836 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2016). In applying the first-to-file, “a court analyzes three factors: 21 chronology of the lawsuits, similarity of the parties, and similarity of the issues.” Kohn L. Grp., 22 Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Mississippi, Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1240 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). 23 B. Analysis 24 Defendant contends “the application of the first-to-file rule supports dismissal of this 25 [a]ction” because: (1) the Garza action was filed first; (2) Defendant is the sole defendant in both 26 actions and therefore the parties are similar; and (3) there is a complete overlap of the issues in 27 the instant action and the Garza action. (ECF No. 13-1 at 10–11.) In opposition, Plaintiff argues 28 the third prong of the first-to-file rule — similarity of the issues — “is not met because the 1 workplace safety claims [in the instant action] are unique and have not been pled” by the plaintiff 2 in the Garza action. (ECF No. 15 at 9.) Plaintiff further contends “there is no risk of inconsistent 3 judgments or inefficient litigation” because his workplace safety claims are unique. (Id. at 10.) 4 The Court finds the first-to-file rule does not apply here. Although all three factors of the 5 first-to-file rule might be met, Defendant overlooks one crucial aspect of the doctrine — it only 6 applies when two actions are pending in different federal courts. See, e.g., Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. 7 Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94 (9th Cir. 1982) (one action pending in the Southern District of 8 Florida and another in the Central District of California); Kohn L. Grp., Inc., 787 F.3d at 1239 9 (one action pending in the Northern District of Mississippi and another in the Central District of 10 California); Alltrade, Inc., 946 F.2d at 624 (one action pending in the Southern District of Florida 11 and another in the Central District of California). As noted above, the purpose of the first-to-file 12 rule is to conserve judicial resources and avoid conflicting rulings. Church of Scientology of 13 California, 611 F.2d at 750; Pacesetter Sys., Inc., 678 F.2d at 95. The instant action and the 14 Garza action are not only pending before the same court but have been related and are pending 15 before the same district judge. Thus, the risk of inconsistent rulings or wasting judicial resources 16 is low. In any event, Defendant fails to cite any authority for the application of the first-to-file 17 rule when two cases are pending before the same court, let alone the same judge. 18 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to the first-to- 19 file rule. 20 III. MOTION TO STAY 21 Alternatively, Defendants contend the Court should stay the instant action pending 22 resolution of the Garza action. (ECF No. 13-1 12–13.) 23 A. Standard of Law 24 “A district court has [the] inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its 25 docket in a manner which will promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for 26 litigants.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). “Where it is proposed that a 27 pending proceeding be stayed, the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or 28 refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.” Id. 1 Among these competing interests are the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity 2 which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the 3 orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be 4 expected to result from a stay. 5 Id. (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936)). 6 B. Analysis 7 Defendant contends all factors weigh in favor of staying the instant action pending 8 resolution of the Garza action. (ECF No. 13-1 at 13.) Specifically, Defendant argues: (1) a stay 9 will not prejudice Plaintiff; (2) requiring Defendant to defend the instant action when there is a 10 substantially similar action pending will prejudice Defendant; and (3) allowing the instant action 11 to proceed while the Garza action continues will complicate and confuse issues, proof, and 12 questions of law. (Id. at 13–14.) Plaintiff does not specifically address these arguments but 13 argues the Court “should deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss and simply stay this case.” (ECF 14 No. 15 at 11.) 15 Because the parties appear to agree that this case should be stayed pending resolution of 16 the Garza action, the Court finds the competing interests weigh in favor of staying the instant 17 action. 18 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to stay.5 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26

27 5 Because the Court grants Defendant’s motion to stay, the Court declines to address Defendant’s other arguments concerning the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. (See ECF No. 13-1 at 28 15–20.) 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and 3 | GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Stay. (ECF No. 13.) All further proceedings in the instant 4 || action are hereby STAYED until further Order of this Court. The parties are instructed to notify 5 || the Court of their intentions to lift the stay in this case pending resolution of Garza, Jr. v. WinCo 6 | Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01354-TLN-DB, and Defendant shall indicate how it wishes to 7 || proceed on the remaining arguments in its motion (ECF No. 13). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 | Date: June 28, 2024 10 /) “ \/ Lu 12 —ZANX LN Troy L. Nunley> } 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28