1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LASHAWNA LASHAE WILLIAMS, Case No. 25-cv-09548-JST
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS
10 PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, Re: ECF No. 17 et al., 11 Defendants.
12 13 Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion to stay and 14 transfer. ECF No. 17. The motion was filed while this case was pending before a different judge, 15 and the motion to transfer is now moot following reassignment of the case to this Court. ECF 16 No. 19. The Court will grant the motion to dismiss under the first-to-file rule without reaching the 17 parties’ arguments regarding abstention under Colorado River Water Conservation District v. 18 United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). 19 I. JURISDICTION 20 The parties agree that the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). 21 II. LEGAL STANDARD 22 The first-to-file rule “allows a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an action when a 23 similar complaint has been filed in another federal court.” Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods. Inc., 24 946 F.2d 622, 623 (9th Cir. 1991). To determine whether to apply the rule, “a court analyzes three 25 factors: chronology of the lawsuits, similarity of the parties, and similarity of the issues.” Kohn L. 26 Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1240 (9th Cir. 2015). The rule “is not a 27 rigid or inflexible rule to be mechanically applied, but rather is to be applied with a view to the 1 (9th Cir. 1982). “The circumstances under which an exception to the first-to-file rule typically 2 will be made include bad faith, anticipatory suit, and forum shopping.” Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628 3 (citations omitted). In addition, “fairness considerations and equitable concerns could bar the 4 application of the rule,” as could “demonstrations of prejudice.” Adoma v. Univ. of Phx., Inc., 711 5 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1149 (E.D. Cal. 2010). 6 III. DISCUSSION 7 The parties agree that there is substantial overlap between this case and an earlier-filed 8 case pending before this Court, Phillips v. Pacific Maritime Association, Case No. 25-cv-3241. 9 Plaintiff Lashwana Lashae Williams argues that the Court should nonetheless decline to apply the 10 first-to-file rule because the parties and issues are not sufficiently identical and because the 11 balance of equities weighs against application of the rule. The Court addresses each set of 12 arguments in turn below. 13 A. Similarity of the Parties 14 First, Williams argues that her inclusion of two Defendants not named in Phillips—Matson 15 Terminals and SSA Marine—renders the first-to-file rule inapplicable. However, “the first-to-file 16 rule requires only substantial similarity of the parties” and not the “exact identity of the parties.” 17 Kohn, 787 F.3d at 1240. As Williams does not dispute, and as confirmed by the Court’s 18 comparison of the complaints in the two cases, this case and Phillips involve over 25 overlapping 19 defendants and virtually identical class definitions. Compare ECF No. 1 at 24–46 with Phillips, 20 ECF No. 30. In addition, although Phillips does not list SSA Marine as a Defendant, this “seems 21 to be an error,” as the amended complaint in Phillips alleges that “Pacific Maritime Association’s 22 Board of Directors is composed of executives from these other Member Companies including, but 23 not limited to Defendant SSA Marine.” McColley v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, No. 3:25-CV-2372-GPC- 24 MSB, 2026 WL 97995, at *3 n.4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2026); Phillips, ECF No. 30 ¶ 35 (emphasis 25 added). Moreover, Williams does not explain why the inclusion of either of these two Defendants 26 makes the parties not substantially similar when Phillips names as Defendants two apparently 27 affiliated entities, Matson Navigation Company, Inc., and SSA Terminals, LLC. She argues that 1 which implicates factual and logistical considerations not present in the Phillips action,” ECF No. 2 24 at 9, but Phillips also concerns “workers across multiple California ports,” Phillips, ECF No. 3 30 ¶ 33. Having reviewed the complaints in both cases, the Court concludes that the parties are 4 more than substantially similar. 5 B. Similarity of the Issues 6 Second, Williams argues that the complaint in this case includes three causes of action not 7 asserted in Phillips: “(1) failure to timely pay wages during employment under Labor Code 8 section 204; (2) failure to maintain required records under Labor Code section [sic] 226 and 1174, 9 and IWC Wage Order No. 9-2001, section 7; and (3) failure to pay reporting time pay under IWC 10 Wage Order No. 9-2001, section 5.” ECF No. 24 at 10. However, although the Phillips complaint 11 does not contain separate claims for failure to timely pay wages or failure to pay reporting time, it 12 includes allegations that Defendants “failed to timely pay wages,” Phillips, ECF No. 30 ¶ 81, and 13 “failed to correctly calculate . . . reporting time wages owed to [the plaintiffs],” id. ¶ 68. In 14 addition, Williams’s claim regarding failure to maintain required records overlaps with the claim 15 in both cases regarding the accuracy of itemized wage statements under California Labor Code 16 Section 226, and Williams concedes that “the claim for failure to maintain required records may 17 be viewed as derivative claim.” ECF No. 24 at 10. Thus, this case does not present any issues 18 that are beyond those in Phillips. 19 Even if there were additional issues in this case, “[t]he issues in both cases . . . need not be 20 identical, only substantially similar,” for the first-to-file rule to apply. Kohn, 787 F.3d at 1240. 21 “To determine whether two suits involve substantially similar issues, [courts] look at whether 22 there is substantial overlap between the two suits.” Id. at 1241 (citation modified). There is no 23 question that substantial overlap exists between the issues in these two cases. Williams does not 24 dispute that both cases allege claims against a list of nearly identical defendants for unfair 25 competition; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to 26 provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide accurate, itemized wage 27 statements; and failure to reimburse business expenses. 1 C. Balance of Equities 2 Finally, the Court considers Williams’s arguments regarding the balance of equities. 3 Williams does not suggest that there is any bad faith or forum shopping present here, nor does she 4 argue that one suit was brought in anticipation of the other. See Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628 (listing 5 reasons for which courts have declined to apply the first-to-file rule). Instead, she argues that the 6 Court should allow both cases to proceed because this case includes claims that do not overlap 7 with Phillips. As discussed above, however, the Court concludes that this case does not present 8 any issues beyond those raised in Phillips. 9 Williams’s reliance on Adoma, 711 F. Supp. 2d at 1150, is misplaced.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LASHAWNA LASHAE WILLIAMS, Case No. 25-cv-09548-JST
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS
10 PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, Re: ECF No. 17 et al., 11 Defendants.
12 13 Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion to stay and 14 transfer. ECF No. 17. The motion was filed while this case was pending before a different judge, 15 and the motion to transfer is now moot following reassignment of the case to this Court. ECF 16 No. 19. The Court will grant the motion to dismiss under the first-to-file rule without reaching the 17 parties’ arguments regarding abstention under Colorado River Water Conservation District v. 18 United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). 19 I. JURISDICTION 20 The parties agree that the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). 21 II. LEGAL STANDARD 22 The first-to-file rule “allows a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an action when a 23 similar complaint has been filed in another federal court.” Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods. Inc., 24 946 F.2d 622, 623 (9th Cir. 1991). To determine whether to apply the rule, “a court analyzes three 25 factors: chronology of the lawsuits, similarity of the parties, and similarity of the issues.” Kohn L. 26 Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1240 (9th Cir. 2015). The rule “is not a 27 rigid or inflexible rule to be mechanically applied, but rather is to be applied with a view to the 1 (9th Cir. 1982). “The circumstances under which an exception to the first-to-file rule typically 2 will be made include bad faith, anticipatory suit, and forum shopping.” Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628 3 (citations omitted). In addition, “fairness considerations and equitable concerns could bar the 4 application of the rule,” as could “demonstrations of prejudice.” Adoma v. Univ. of Phx., Inc., 711 5 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1149 (E.D. Cal. 2010). 6 III. DISCUSSION 7 The parties agree that there is substantial overlap between this case and an earlier-filed 8 case pending before this Court, Phillips v. Pacific Maritime Association, Case No. 25-cv-3241. 9 Plaintiff Lashwana Lashae Williams argues that the Court should nonetheless decline to apply the 10 first-to-file rule because the parties and issues are not sufficiently identical and because the 11 balance of equities weighs against application of the rule. The Court addresses each set of 12 arguments in turn below. 13 A. Similarity of the Parties 14 First, Williams argues that her inclusion of two Defendants not named in Phillips—Matson 15 Terminals and SSA Marine—renders the first-to-file rule inapplicable. However, “the first-to-file 16 rule requires only substantial similarity of the parties” and not the “exact identity of the parties.” 17 Kohn, 787 F.3d at 1240. As Williams does not dispute, and as confirmed by the Court’s 18 comparison of the complaints in the two cases, this case and Phillips involve over 25 overlapping 19 defendants and virtually identical class definitions. Compare ECF No. 1 at 24–46 with Phillips, 20 ECF No. 30. In addition, although Phillips does not list SSA Marine as a Defendant, this “seems 21 to be an error,” as the amended complaint in Phillips alleges that “Pacific Maritime Association’s 22 Board of Directors is composed of executives from these other Member Companies including, but 23 not limited to Defendant SSA Marine.” McColley v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, No. 3:25-CV-2372-GPC- 24 MSB, 2026 WL 97995, at *3 n.4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2026); Phillips, ECF No. 30 ¶ 35 (emphasis 25 added). Moreover, Williams does not explain why the inclusion of either of these two Defendants 26 makes the parties not substantially similar when Phillips names as Defendants two apparently 27 affiliated entities, Matson Navigation Company, Inc., and SSA Terminals, LLC. She argues that 1 which implicates factual and logistical considerations not present in the Phillips action,” ECF No. 2 24 at 9, but Phillips also concerns “workers across multiple California ports,” Phillips, ECF No. 3 30 ¶ 33. Having reviewed the complaints in both cases, the Court concludes that the parties are 4 more than substantially similar. 5 B. Similarity of the Issues 6 Second, Williams argues that the complaint in this case includes three causes of action not 7 asserted in Phillips: “(1) failure to timely pay wages during employment under Labor Code 8 section 204; (2) failure to maintain required records under Labor Code section [sic] 226 and 1174, 9 and IWC Wage Order No. 9-2001, section 7; and (3) failure to pay reporting time pay under IWC 10 Wage Order No. 9-2001, section 5.” ECF No. 24 at 10. However, although the Phillips complaint 11 does not contain separate claims for failure to timely pay wages or failure to pay reporting time, it 12 includes allegations that Defendants “failed to timely pay wages,” Phillips, ECF No. 30 ¶ 81, and 13 “failed to correctly calculate . . . reporting time wages owed to [the plaintiffs],” id. ¶ 68. In 14 addition, Williams’s claim regarding failure to maintain required records overlaps with the claim 15 in both cases regarding the accuracy of itemized wage statements under California Labor Code 16 Section 226, and Williams concedes that “the claim for failure to maintain required records may 17 be viewed as derivative claim.” ECF No. 24 at 10. Thus, this case does not present any issues 18 that are beyond those in Phillips. 19 Even if there were additional issues in this case, “[t]he issues in both cases . . . need not be 20 identical, only substantially similar,” for the first-to-file rule to apply. Kohn, 787 F.3d at 1240. 21 “To determine whether two suits involve substantially similar issues, [courts] look at whether 22 there is substantial overlap between the two suits.” Id. at 1241 (citation modified). There is no 23 question that substantial overlap exists between the issues in these two cases. Williams does not 24 dispute that both cases allege claims against a list of nearly identical defendants for unfair 25 competition; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to 26 provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide accurate, itemized wage 27 statements; and failure to reimburse business expenses. 1 C. Balance of Equities 2 Finally, the Court considers Williams’s arguments regarding the balance of equities. 3 Williams does not suggest that there is any bad faith or forum shopping present here, nor does she 4 argue that one suit was brought in anticipation of the other. See Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628 (listing 5 reasons for which courts have declined to apply the first-to-file rule). Instead, she argues that the 6 Court should allow both cases to proceed because this case includes claims that do not overlap 7 with Phillips. As discussed above, however, the Court concludes that this case does not present 8 any issues beyond those raised in Phillips. 9 Williams’s reliance on Adoma, 711 F. Supp. 2d at 1150, is misplaced. In that case, the 10 court concluded that the equities “tip[ped] in favor of an exception to the first-to-file rule” because 11 the second-filed case included claims under California state law, whereas the first-filed case 12 involved only the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), and because “unlike in a class 13 action where the statute of limitations is tolled while a plaintiff seeks certification, the rights [of] 14 members of a proposed collective action [under FLSA] are not so protected.” Id. These concerns 15 are not present here, where both this case and Phillips are putative class actions and there are no 16 distinct issues between the cases. Williams has shown no prejudice in applying the first-to-file 17 rule. 18 D. Dismissal or Stay 19 Because the Court finds it appropriate to apply the first-to-file rule, it must determine 20 whether to dismiss or stay the case. Williams argues that the first-to-file rule should not apply, but 21 she makes no arguments in favor of a stay over dismissal if the Court were to apply the rule. As 22 another court concluded when dismissing a similar case rather than transferring it to this Court, 23 “the Phillips action fully encompasses and provides redress for all allegations in this action. Thus, 24 the Court concludes that dismissal best promotes efficiency in this case.” McColley, 2026 WL 25 97995, at *7. This Court reaches the same conclusion and finds no reason to stay rather than 26 dismiss this duplicative case. 27 / / / 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the above reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss under the first-to- 3 file rule. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 || Dated: February 23, 2026 6 JON S. TIGA 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 1] a 12
13 14
15 16
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28