Longley v. HPC Industrial Services, LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 11, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00860
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRAVIS LONGLEY, Case No. 1:24-cv-00860-KES-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a) 13 v. ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING 14 HPC INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC, CONFERENCE ON FEBRUARY 25, 2025, AT 9:30 AM 15 Defendant. (Doc. 14) 16 17 Case No. 1:24-cv-01479-KES-CDB 18 DEREK MOSS, 19 ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS Plaintiff, PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a) 20 v. ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING 21 CONFERENCE ON HPC INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC, et FEBRUARY 25, 2025, AT 9:30 AM 22 al.,

23 Defendants. 24 25 Relevant Background 26 On June 17, 2024, Plaintiff Travis Longley filed a class action complaint in the Superior 27 Court of California, County of Kern, case number BCV-24-102044, that was removed to this 28 Court on July 25, 2024. Case No. 1:24-cv-00860-KES-CDB (“Longley”) (Doc. 1). On March 18, 1 2024, Plaintiff Derek Moss filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, 2 County of Los Angeles, case number 24-STCV06730, that was removed to this Court on May 6, 3 2024. Case No. 1:24-cv-01479-KES-CDB (“Moss”) (Doc. 1). Following Defendant HPC 4 Industrial Services, LLC’s (“HPC”) filing of the notice of related cases in these two actions 5 (Longley Doc. 10; Moss Doc. 24), District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff assigned the actions to himself 6 and the undersigned. (Longley Doc. 11; Moss Doc. 25). 7 On February 14, 2025, in response to the Court’s order directing the Longley and Moss 8 parties to confer and file a joint report regarding case management (Longley Doc. 13; Moss Doc. 9 24), the parties filed the joint status report. (Longley Doc. 14). Therein, the Longley and Moss 10 parties represent that they are not necessarily opposed to consolidation but deem it to be 11 unnecessary at this juncture. (Id. at 6). 12 Discussion 13 When multiple actions pending before a court involve common questions of law or fact, 14 the court may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all matters at issue in the actions; consolidate 15 the actions; and/or issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 42(a). The court has “broad discretion” to determine whether and to what extent consolidation is 17 appropriate and may undertake consolidation sua sponte. See Garity v. APWU Nat’l Labor Org., 18 828 F.3d 848, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Inv’rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Cent. 19 Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989)); In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 20 (9th Cir. 1987) (court may consolidate actions sua sponte). “Typically, consolidation is a favored 21 procedure.” Blount v. Boston Scientific Corporation, No. 1:19-cv-00578-AWI-SAB, 2019 WL 22 3943872, *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2019) (citing In re Oreck Corp. Halo Vacuum & Air Purifiers 23 Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 282 F.R.D. 486, 491 (C.D. Cal. 2012)). In deciding whether to 24 consolidate actions, the court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce 25 against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 26 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984); Single Chip Sys. Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F.Supp.2d 1052, 27 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2007). 28 Here, based on the Court’s review of the pleadings in both actions, the Court finds there 1 are significant and substantial common issues of fact and law that warrant consolidation under 2 Rule 42(a) and Local Rule 123. 3 In the Longley parties’ joint scheduling report filed on January 22, 2025, the parties state 4 as follows: “Given the significant overlap of claims and defenses in both the Moss action and the 5 instant case, there will likely be significant overlap of discovery and trial proceedings which may 6 result in consolidation of the two cases.” (Longley Doc. 12 at 2). 7 Both actions assert substantially similar facts, arising out of Defendant HPC’s failure to 8 pay all straight and overtime wages, failure to provide lawful meal and rest periods, failure to 9 provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse employees for business expenses 10 and illegal deductions, failure to adopt a compliant sick/paid time off policy, and other claims in 11 violation of the rights of Plaintiffs and a putative class of hourly, non-exempt employees. See 12 (Longley Doc. 1); (Moss Doc. 1). Both actions seek certification of a putative class. See (Longley 13 Doc. 12); (Moss Doc. 18). 14 In addition to a common defendant in HPC Industrial Services, LLC, it appears to the 15 Court that these two putative wage-and-hour actions share common questions of fact and law, 16 with both actions asserting similar causes of action, all of which arise out of the California Labor 17 Code and California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). (Longley Doc. 10 at 2). The relief 18 requested in both complaints is substantially similar. (Longley Doc. 1); (Moss Doc. 1). 19 Currently, both actions are in a similar procedural posture, with the initial scheduling conference 20 pending in each. Counsel for Defendants is identical in both actions. Presently, the parties in 21 both actions have proposed discovery and briefing schedules for the anticipated motion for class 22 certification. (Longley Doc. 14). 23 Absent consolidation, the Court would anticipate addressing substantially similar issues in 24 each case involving discovery, motion practice, and pre-trial proceedings, as well as in trial itself. 25 It follows that consolidation would likely expedite the litigation, rather than cause any delay. The 26 questions presented do not evidence a high likelihood of confusion and the parties involved are 27 relatively few. The Court cannot discern any resulting prejudice to any of the parties due to 28 consolidation and, further, consolidation will avoid the risk of inconsistent verdicts in related 1 | cases. 2 Finally, the benefit of consolidation would reduce the burden on judicial resources, the 3 | parties, and any potential witnesses, eliminate the risk of inconsistent adjudications, avoid 4 | prejudice, and allow for the orderly and expeditious resolution of all cases. If, at some point in 5 | the future, the actions change in a manner sufficient to where the parties believe they will be 6 | prejudiced, they may file a motion for severance. 7 Conclusion and Order 8 | Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The following actions are CONSOLIDATED under Rule 42(a) for all purposes: 10 a. The lead case, Travis Longley v. HPC Industrial Services, LLC., Case No. 11 1:24-cv-00860-KES-CDB; 12 b. Derek Moss, et al. v. HPC Industrial Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv- 13 01479-KES-CDB. 14 2. All further filings in this consolidated action shall be made in lead case Travis Longley 15 y. HPC Industrial Services, LLC., Case No. 1:24-cv-O0860-KES-CDB. 16 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close member case Derek Moss, et al. v. HPC 17 Industrial Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01479-KES-CDB. 18 4. The parties shall appear via Zoom videoconference for a scheduling conference in this 19 consolidated action on February 25, 2025, at 9:30 AM. 20 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ February 10, 2025 | br Pr 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28