Jennifer Lacey Salas v. Aldi Inc.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 2, 2019
• Docket: 2:19-cv-06741
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JENNIFER LACEY-SALAS, an Case No.: 19cv1269-MMA (MDD) 11 individual on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 12 MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

13 Plaintiff, [Doc. No. 11] v. 14 ALDI INC., a corporation, and AI 15 CALIFORNIA LLC, a limited liability company, 16 17 Defendants. 18 19 On June 7, 2019, Plaintiff Jennifer Lacey-Salas (“Plaintiff”) filed this putative 20 class action against Defendants ALDI Inc. and AI California LLC (“Defendants”) 21 alleging various wage and hour claims in the Superior Court of California, County of San 22 Diego. See Doc. No. 1-2. On July 10, 2019, Defendants removed the action to this Court 23 pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Doc. No. 1. 24 On July 30, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion to transfer this case to the Central 25 District of California pursuant to the first-to-file rule. See Doc. No. 11. For the reasons 26 set forth below, the Court GRANTS the joint motion. 27 Under the first-to-file rule, district courts have discretion to dismiss, stay, or 28 transfer a case to another district. Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 1 94-95. (9th Cir. 1982). The rule “recognize[s] [the] doctrine of federal comity which 2 permits a district court to decline jurisdiction over an action when a complaint involving 3 the same parties and issues has already been filed in another district.” Id. The rule, 4 however, is “not a rigid or inflexible rule to be mechanically applied but rather to be 5 applied with a view to the dictates of sound judicial administration.” Id. at 95. In 6 deciding whether to apply the first-to-file rule, courts analyze three factors: “the 7 chronology of the lawsuits, similarity of the parties, and similarity of issues.” Kohn Law 8 Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1240 (9th Cir. 2015). If the 9 three factors are satisfied, the court in which the second action was filed may transfer, 10 stay, or dismiss the proceeding in order to allow the court in which the first action was 11 filed to decide whether to try the case. Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d 12 622, 628-29 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 Here, upon consideration of the relevant factors, the Court finds that all three 14 factors weigh in favor of transferring the instant action to the Central District. 15 Defendants filed a notice of related cases regarding a similar action, Gant v. ALDI Inc. 16 and AI California LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-3109-JAK-PLA, which was originally filed in 17 Los Angeles County Superior Court on February 14, 2019 and removed to the Central 18 District of California on April 22, 2019. See Doc. No. 7. Notably, Gant was filed nearly 19 four months prior to the instant action. Additionally, both Gant and the instant action 20 involve the same defendants. See Doc. No. 11 at 1. Moreover, the proposed class in this 21 action is encompassed by the proposed class in Gant and both cases assert substantially 22 similar wage and hour claims, such as failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and 23 rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay wages at 24 termination, and failure to reimburse all reasonable and necessary business expenses. See 25 id. Further, the parties “jointly request the transfer of this action to the Central District of 26 California.” Id. at 2. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the requirements of the first-to-file 2 rule are satisfied and the Court, in its discretion, finds that transferring the instant action 3 to the Central District of California will preserve judicial resources. Accordingly, the 4 Court GRANTS the joint motion and TRANSFERS this action to the Central District of 5 California.1 The Clerk of Court is instructed to terminate all pending motions, deadlines, 6 and hearings and close the case. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: August 2, 2019 11 _____________________________ 12 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 1 The Court declines to address the parties’ request regarding the automatic timing requirements set forth in Central District Local Rule 23-3. See Doc. No. 11 at 2. The parties can direct any such 28