Manuel Cisneros v. Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MANUEL CISNEROS, Case No. 25-cv-03695-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO STAY 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 18 10 VESTIS UNIFORMS AND WORKPLACE SUPPLIES, INC., 11 Defendant. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies, Inc.’s 14 motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay the action pursuant to the first-to-file rule. See Dkt. 15 No. 18 (“Mot.”); Dkt. No. 26 (“Reply”). Plaintiff Manuel Cisneros opposes the motion. See Dkt. 16 No. 22 (“Opp.”). The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument 17 and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons discussed below, the 18 Court DENIES the motion. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff Manuel Cisneros brings this proposed class action against his former employer, 21 Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies, Inc. (hereinafter, “Defendant”), for alleged violations of 22 California’s Labor Code and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), and for penalties 23 under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). See Dkt. No. 1 (Notice of Removal); Dkt. 24 No. 1, Ex. A (“Compl.”). Defendant is in the hospitality services industry and provides services 25 relating to food, facilities management, and hospitality management. Compl. ¶ 4. Plaintiff 26 allegedly worked for Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt utility driver from April 27, 2015, to 27 December 4, 2023. Id. ¶¶ 3, 13. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to: pay him wages for all 1 when discharging job duties; provide him legally mandated rest breaks; pay him timely wages; 2 and maintain accurate records and wage statements. Id. ¶ 29. Plaintiff further alleges that 3 Defendant harassed him, discriminated against him, and terminated his employment because of his 4 age and because he took disability leave after he was injured in a work-related accident. Id. ¶¶ 25- 5 34. 6 Plaintiff asserts claims on his own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class of similarly 7 situated employees of Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies, Inc. in California1 for: (1) failure 8 to pay wages for all hours worked in violation of California Labor Code sections 200-04, 218, 9 223, 225.5, 226, 500, 510, 558, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198; (2) failure to pay overtime 10 wages in violation of California Labor Code sections 200-04, 210, 216, 223, 225.5, 500, 510, 558, 11 1194, and 1198; (3) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of California Labor Code sections 12 223 and 1194; (4) failure to provide meal and rest periods in violation of California Labor Code 13 sections 226.7 and 612; (5) failure to reimburse business expenses in violation of California Labor 14 Code sections 406 and 2802; (6) failure to pay wages upon termination in violation of California 15 Labor Code sections 201-03 and 227.3; (7) failure to pay timely wages in violation of California 16 Labor Code section 210; (8) failure to maintain accurate records in violation of California Labor 17 Code sections 1174 and 1174.5; (9) failure to furnish wage statements in violation of California 18 Labor Code sections 226(e) and 226.3; and (10) civil penalties under PAGA. See id. ¶¶ 35-133. 19 Additionally, Plaintiff asserts claims on his own behalf for: (1) unlawful retaliation in violation of 20 public policy and California Labor Code sections 98.6, 230, 232, 232.5, and 1102.5; (2) wrongful 21 termination in violation of public policy; (3) discrimination in violation of FEHA; and (4) 22 wrongful termination in violation of FEHA. See id. ¶¶ 134-65. 23 Plaintiff filed this action in Contra Costa Superior Court on December 16, 2024. See Dkt. 24 No. 1. Defendant removed it to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 25 on April 28, 2025. See id. 26 27 1 The complaint does not contain a more detailed definition of the proposed class Plaintiff seeks to 1 At the time that Plaintiff filed this action, the following wage-and-hour proposed class 2 actions were pending2: 3 (1) Deluna v. Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC, San Benito Superior Court Case 4 Number CU-19-00059 (“Deluna”). This action was filed on April 3, 2019, in San 5 Benito Superior Court. The plaintiff, Raul Deluna, asserts claims for violations of 6 California’s Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) against Aramark 7 Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC. See Dkt. No. 19, Ex. A. The claims arise out of 8 Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC’s alleged (1) failure to pay minimum wages; 9 (2) failure to provide paid rest breaks; and (3) failure to provide accurate wage 10 statements. The plaintiff asserts those claims on his own behalf and on behalf of 11 people who worked for Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC, in California and 12 were paid on a commission basis at any time from April 3, 2015, to the present. 13 (2) Fernandez v. Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC, Central District of California 14 Case Number 2:23-cv-07711-CAS-PD (“Fernandez”). This action was filed on July 15 12, 2023, in Los Angeles Superior Court. It was removed to the Central District of 16 California on September 15, 2023. The plaintiff, Antoinette Fernandez, initially 17 asserted claims for violations of California’s Labor Code against Aramark Uniform & 18 Career Apparel, LLC, on her own behalf and on behalf of current and former hourly 19 and non-exempt employees of Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC, in 20 California. See Dkt. No. 19, Ex. B, C. 21 22 23 2 Defendant requests judicial notice of (1) the complaint filed in Deluna, see Dkt. No. 19, Ex. A; 24 (2) the complaint and first amended complaint filed in Fernandez, see Dkt. No. 19, Ex. B, C; (3) the complaint and second amended complaint filed in Brown, see Dkt. No. 19, Ex. D, E; and (4) 25 an order issued in Fernandez on February 10, 2025, see Dkt. No. 19, Ex. F. Because these filings are relevant to the determination of the present motion and they are undisputed matters of public 26 record, the Court may take judicial notice of them. See Harris v. Cnty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) (“We may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record, 27 including documents on file in federal or state courts.”) (internal citation omitted). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for judicial notice with respect to these filings for the 1 (3) Brown v. Western First Aid & Safety, et al., Central District of California Case Number 2 2:24-cv-06238-CAS-PD (“Brown”). This action was filed on June 20, 2024, in Los 3 Angeles Superior Court. It was removed to the Central District of California on July 4 24, 2024. The plaintiff, Samantha Shaunee Brown, initially asserted claims for 5 violations of California’s Labor Code against Western First Aid & Safety, Vestis 6 Group, Inc., Vestis Corporation, and Katie Hall on her own behalf and on behalf of 7 hourly and non-exempt current and former employees of those defendants in 8 California. See Dkt. No. 19, Ex. D, E. 9 On February 10, 2025, Fernandez was consolidated with Brown for pre-trial purposes. See 10 Dkt. No. 19, Ex. F. 11 On February 20, 2026, after briefing on the present motion had been completed, the court 12 in Fernandez and Brown vacated all case deadlines relating to class certification because the 13 parties in both actions reached a global settlement agreement that will resolve all claims in both 14 cases if it is ultimately approved under Rule 23.3 See Fernandez, Dkt. Nos. 48, 49; Brown, Dkt. 15 No. 59.4 In accordance with the terms of the global settlement agreement, the court permitted the 16 named plaintiffs to jointly file an amended complaint. See id. 17 On February 20, 2026, the named plaintiffs in Fernandez and Brown jointly filed an 18 amended consolidated complaint in which they assert claims for violations of California’s Labor 19 Code and UCL, as well as a claim for penalties under PAGA, against Aramark Uniform & Career 20 Apparel, LLC, which is “now known as Vestis Services, LLC.” See Fernandez, Dkt. No. 50.5 21 The claims arise out of Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC’s alleged failure to: (1) pay 22 minimum wages; (2) pay overtime wages; (3) provide meal periods; (4) authorize rest periods; (5) 23 indemnify business expenses; (6) pay wages of discharged employees; (7) provide accurate wage 24

25 3 A motion for preliminary approval under Rule 23 of the global settlement agreement has not yet been filed. 26 4 The Court can and does take judicial notice of recent filings in Fernandez and Brown because they are undisputed matters of public record. See Harris, 682 F.3d at 1132. 27 5 The amended consolidated complaint was filed on the Fernandez docket but not the Brown 1 records; and (8) provide sick leave. See id. The claims are asserted on behalf of a proposed class 2 of current and former non-exempt employees of Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC (now 3 known as Vestis Services, LLC) in California who were assigned to work at the Riverside Market 4 Center or the Western First Aid & Safety division since July 12, 2020. See id. ¶¶ 2, 9, 23. 5 The table below summarizes the basic aspects of Deluna, Fernandez, and Brown, as well 6 as this action, based on the operative pleadings in each case. Case Plaintiffs Defendants6 Proposed Class 7 Deluna Raul Deluna Aramark All current and former employees who 8 Uniform & worked for Aramark Uniform & Career 9 Career Apparel, Apparel, LLC, in California and were paid LLC on a commission basis at any time from 10 April 3, 2015, to the present 11 Fernandez/ Antoinette Aramark All current and former non-exempt 12 Brown7 Fernandez Uniform & employees of Aramark Uniform & Career Career Apparel, Apparel, LLC (now known as Vestis 13 Samantha LLC, “now Services, LLC) in California who were Shaunee known as Vestis assigned to work at the Riverside Market 14 Brown Services, LLC” Center or the Western First Aid & Safety division since July 12, 2020 15 16 This action Manuel Vestis Uniforms Similarly situated employees of Vestis Cisneros and Workplace Uniforms and Workplace Supplies, Inc. in 17 Supplies, Inc. California 18 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD 20 The first-to-file rule is a doctrine of federal comity that permits a district court to decline 21 jurisdiction over an action “if a similar case with substantially similar issues and parties was 22 previously filed in another district court.” See Kohn L. Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Mississippi, 23 Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 24 F.2d 93, 95 (9th Cir. 1982). Under the rule, a district court may, in its discretion, “transfer, stay, 25 or dismiss the second case in the interest of efficiency and judicial economy.” Cedars-Sinai Med. 26

27 6 Doe defendants are omitted. 1 Ctr. v. Shalala, 125 F.3d 765, 769 (9th Cir. 1997). In determining whether to apply the rule, 2 courts must consider the “chronology of the lawsuits, similarity of the parties, and similarity of the 3 issues.” See id. The first-to-file rule “is not a rigid or inflexible rule to be mechanically applied, 4 but rather is to be applied with a view to the dictates of sound judicial administration.” Pacesetter 5 Sys., 678 F.2d at 95. 6 III. DISCUSSION 7 Defendant Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies, Inc. moves to dismiss or to stay this 8 action under the first-to-file rule on the grounds that Deluna, Fernandez, and Brown assert similar 9 claims for violations of California’s Labor Code “against the same Defendant[,]” namely non- 10 party Vestis Services, LLC, “on behalf of overlapping classes of [Vestis Services, LLC’s] 11 employees.” See Mot. at ii. Defendant contends that non-party Vestis Services, LLC, was 12 Plaintiff’s actual employer and should be treated as the defendant in this action. See id. at 1. 13 Defendant further argues that because this action is “duplicative” of Deluna, Fernandez, and 14 Brown, allowing it to proceed would risk inconsistent results and waste judicial resources. See id. 15 Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that the requirements for dismissing or staying under 16 the first-to-file rule are not met because, among other reasons, this action does not involve 17 substantially similar parties as the earlier-filed actions given that “[t]his action involves a different 18 defendant than the prior cases[.]” See Opp. at 2. Plaintiff further contends that Defendant has not 19 proffered evidence to show that the entities named as defendants in the earlier-filed actions are not 20 “legally distinct” from it. See id. at 3-4. 21 Before turning to the merits of the present motion, the Court addresses a threshold matter. 22 The first-to-file rule allows a district court to dismiss, stay, or transfer an action only where the 23 first-filed action is pending in “another district court.” See Kohn, 787 F.3d at 1239 (holding that 24 the first-to-file rule can be applied where “a similar case with substantially similar issues and 25 parties was previously filed in another district court”) (emphasis added); see also Pacesetter Sys., 26 678 F.2d at 94-95 (noting that the first-to-file rule is a “recognized doctrine of federal comity 27 which permits a district court to decline jurisdiction over an action when a complaint involving the 1 file rule, therefore, does not apply where the first-filed action is pending in state court. See Tinnin 2 v. Sutter Valley Med. Found., 647 F. Supp. 3d 864, 871 (E.D. Cal. 2022) (denying motion to stay 3 under the first-to-file rule in light of an earlier-filed case pending in state court because the rule 4 does not apply in that circumstance). This interpretation of the first-to-file rule is consistent with 5 Defendant’s own characterization of the doctrine in its opening brief. See Mot. at 4 (“This well- 6 established rule allows a district court to dismiss, or stay an action when a similar complaint is 7 pending in federal court.”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court considers whether the 8 relevant factors support dismissing or staying this action under the first-to-file rule in light of 9 Fernandez/Brown, which are pending in the Central District of California, but not Deluna, which 10 is pending in San Benito Superior Court. 11 A. Chronology 12 The chronology factor requires that the action that is the subject of a motion to dismiss or 13 to stay under the first-to-file rule “was filed later in time.” See Selection Mgmt. v. Torus Specialty 14 Ins. Co., No. 4:15-cv-05445-YGR, 2016 WL 304781, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016). 15 Here, it is undisputed that this action was filed after Fernandez and Brown. Accordingly, 16 this factor favors applying the first-to-file rule. 17 B. Similarity of the Parties 18 The first-to-file rule “does not require exact identity of the parties”; it “requires only 19 substantial similarity of the parties.” Kohn, 787 F.3d at 1240 (citations omitted). “In a class 20 action, the relevant comparator is the similarity of the proposed classes rather than the class 21 representatives themselves.” Singh v. FCA US LLC, No. 23-CV-00452-HSG, 2023 WL 7093700, 22 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2023) (citations omitted). “District courts within the Ninth Circuit have 23 found that proposed classes in class action lawsuits are substantially similar where both classes 24 seek to represent at least some of the same individuals.” Bellone v. First Transit, Inc., No. 21-CV- 25 09617-HSG, 2022 WL 4292964, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2022) (citation and internal quotation 26 marks omitted). 27 Here, there is no overlap between the parties in this case and those in Fernandez/Brown. 1 Fernandez/Brown: the defendant there is Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC, which is 2 “now known as Vestis Services, LLC[.]” See Fernandez, Dkt. No. 50. Further, the members of 3 the proposed class that Plaintiff seeks to represent here are not members of the proposed class in 4 Fernandez/Brown. Plaintiff seeks to represent similarly situated employees of Vestis Uniforms 5 and Workplace Supplies, Inc., in California. See Compl. at 1 & ¶ 1. By contrast, the proposed 6 class in Fernandez/Brown is comprised of current and former non-exempt employees of Aramark 7 Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC (now known as Vestis Services, LLC) in California who were 8 assigned to work at the Riverside Market Center or the Western First Aid & Safety division since 9 July 12, 2020. See Fernandez, Dkt. No. 50 ¶ 2. Therefore, the parties in this case are not 10 substantially similar to those in Fernandez/Brown. 11 Defendant contends that this action and Fernandez/Brown allege “the same or similar 12 Labor Code violations against the same defendant,” namely Vestis Services, LLC. See Mot. at 1; 13 see also Reply at 1 (arguing that “the same entity is the operative defendant in each case”). 14 Defendant argues that the Court can find that Vestis Services, LLC, is the operative defendant in 15 this action because that entity was “Plaintiff’s actual employer[.]” See Reply at 3 (arguing that 16 “Plaintiff mistakenly named Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies, Inc. as the defendant in 17 this lawsuit instead of Plaintiff’s actual employer, Vestis Services, LLC, and the actual employer 18 of the putative classes in Deluna, Fernandez and Brown”). 19 Defendant’s argument is unavailing. Plaintiff disputes that his employer was Vestis 20 Services, LLC. Consistent with his allegations, see Compl. ¶¶ 1, 3, Plaintiff contends that his 21 employer was Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies, Inc. and that this action, therefore, 22 “involves a different defendant than the prior cases,” see Opp. at 1-2. Defendant has not cited any 23 authority holding that, for the purpose of resolving a motion under the first-to-file rule, the Court 24 can (1) disregard Plaintiff’s allegations that his employer was Vestis Uniforms Workplace 25 Supplies, Inc., and (2) treat non-party Vestis Services, LLC, as the operative defendant based on 26 Defendant’s assertion that Vestis Services, LLC, was Plaintiff’s actual employer. Courts in this 27 circuit have held that, when deciding a motion under the first-to-file rule, a court “must only 1 19-CV-00218-JSC, 2019 WL 1411222, at *7 n.5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019) (citation and internal 2 quotation marks omitted); Wilkie v. Gentiva Health Servs., Inc., No. CIV. 10-1451 FCD/GGH, 3 2010 WL 3703060, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2010) (same). Based on these authorities, which the 4 Court finds persuasive, the Court cannot consider Defendant’s assertion that Vestis Services, LLC, 5 was Plaintiff’s actual employer for the purpose of contradicting the allegations in the complaint.8 6 Because Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies, Inc. is the only entity that is identified as 7 Plaintiff’s former employer and named as a defendant in the complaint as it currently exists, see 8 Compl. ¶¶ 1-3, the Court treats that entity as the only defendant in this action for the purpose of 9 resolving this motion. 10 Defendant also argues that “the putative class members Plaintiff seeks to represent here are 11 already putative class members in” Fernandez/Brown. See Mot. at 1. This argument fails because 12 it presupposes that the same entity, Vestis Services, LLC, was the employer of the proposed class 13 members in this action and of those in Fernandez/Brown. For the reasons discussed above, the 14 alleged employer of the proposed class members in this case is not the same as the alleged 15 employer of the proposed class members in Fernandez/Brown. 16 The cases that Defendant relies upon for the proposition that the similarity-of-the-parties 17 requirement is satisfied are non-binding and distinguishable. There, unlike here, the actions at 18 issue had at least one defendant and some proposed class members in common. See, e.g., Negrete 19

20 8 Defendant requests judicial notice of three certificates of amendment filed with the California Secretary of State for the purpose of showing that Vestis Services, LLC “was formally known as 21 Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC” and that Defendant Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies, Inc. was formerly known as Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel Group, Inc. and Vestis 22 Group, Inc. See Mot. at 1 & n.1 (referring to Dkt. No. 19, Ex. G, H, I). Because the certificates are public records, and no party disputes their authenticity, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s 23 request for judicial notice of the fact that such certificates were filed with the California Secretary of State on the dates stated on the certificates. However, to the extent that Defendant points to the 24 contents of these certificates as support for its assertion that Vestis Services, LLC, was Plaintiff’s actual employer, the Court declines to consider them for that purpose because the Court must 25 consider only the pleadings as they currently exist when resolving a motion under the first-to-file rule, as discussed above. Further, it would be improper for the Court to consider the statements in 26 the certificates as support for Defendant’s assertion that Vestis Services, LLC, was Plaintiff’s actual employer because Plaintiff’s allegations contradict that assertion, as noted above. See 27 Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998-1001 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that it is improper for a court to judicially notice statements in a public record if there is a reasonable 1 v. Petsmart, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-01218-MCE-AC, 2013 WL 4853995, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2 2013) (holding that the parties were substantially similar because both cases named PetSmart as a 3 defendant and the proposed classes in both cases included current and former employees of 4 PetSmart); Wallerstein v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc., 967 F. Supp. 2d 1289, 1296 (N.D. Cal. 5 2013) (holding that the parties were substantially similar because “plaintiffs in both actions intend 6 to represent at least a nationwide class that purchased Dole Salad Kits containing synthetic 7 products from January 1, 2009 to the present” and both actions named Dole as “the sole 8 defendant”); Adoma v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 711 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1148 (E.D. Cal. 2010) 9 (holding that the parties were substantially similar because “the named defendants in the Sabol and 10 Adoma actions are identical” and “the proposed classes for the collective actions are substantially 11 similar in that both classes seek to represent at least some of the same individuals”). 12 Accordingly, this factor weighs against dismissing or staying this action under the first-to- 13 file rule. That said, because the identity of Plaintiff’s employer is presumably subject to ready, 14 prompt, and conclusive verification, an early motion for summary adjudication on that issue may 15 well be appropriate. If it turns out that the facts support Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff was 16 employed by the same entity that has been sued in Fernandez/Brown, that would likely change the 17 first-to-file analysis. 18 C. Similarity of the Issues 19 For the first-to-file rule to apply, the issues in the first-filed case and the second case “need 20 not be identical, only substantially similar.” Kohn, 787 F.3d at 1240 (citations omitted). “To 21 determine whether two suits involve substantially similar issues, [courts] look at whether there is 22 substantial overlap between the two suits.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 23 Here, Plaintiff alleges that the employment practices of Defendant Vestis Uniforms and 24 Workplace Supplies, Inc. violate various provisions of California’s Labor Code and FEHA. By 25 contrast, the plaintiffs in Fernandez/Brown allege that the employment practices of Aramark 26 Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC (now known as Vestis Services, LLC) violate various provisions 27 of California’s Labor Code and the UCL. Because the employment practices of Defendant Vestis 1 practices of Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC (now known as Vestis Services, LLC) are 2 not at issue in this case, the issues that will be litigated in Fernandez/Brown are not “substantially 3 similar” to those that will be litigated here. Cf. Hoyt v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 19-CV-00218-JSC, 4 2019 WL 1411222, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019) (holding that the “issues in both cases are 5 substantially similar because each and every claim is premised on a finding that Amazon [i.e., the 6 same defendant] improperly classified the Flex drivers as independent contractors rather than 7 employees”). Given that there is no overlap in terms of the issues to be litigated, at least on the 8 face of the complaints, there is no risk of inefficiencies or conflicting determinations if this action 9 is not dismissed or stayed under the first-to-file rule. Cf. Pacesetter, 678 F.2d at 96 (affirming 10 dismissal of action under the first-to-file rule because both actions involved “identical” claims and 11 issues and because “permitting multiple litigation of . . . identical claims could serve no purpose of 12 judicial administration”). 13 The cases that Defendant relies upon do not compel a different conclusion. In those cases, 14 the similarity-of-the-issues requirement was satisfied because the cases at issue asserted the same 15 claims against the same defendant. See Bellone, 2022 WL 4292964, at *4 (holding that the issues 16 were substantially similar because both cases asserted claims for violations of California’s labor 17 laws against the same defendant); Scott v. Golden State FC, LLC, No. 21-CV-02147-HSG, 2021 18 WL 2987264, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2021) (same). The same is not true here. 19 Accordingly, this factor weighs against dismissing or staying this action under the first-to- 20 file rule. 21 // 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Because the parties and issues in this case are not substantially similar to those in 3 || Fernandez/Brown, dismissing or staying this action under the first-to-file rule is not necessary to 4 || prevent inefficiencies, avoid conflicting determinations, or conserve judicial resources. 5 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss or to stay under the first- 6 || to-file rule. 7 This order terminates docket number 18. 8 The Court SETS a case management conference on March 17, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. The 9 || hearing will be held by Public Zoom Webinar. All counsel, members of the public, and media 10 || may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/hsg. All attorneys and pro 11 se litigants appearing for the case management conference are required to join at least 15 minutes 12 || before the hearing to check in with the courtroom deputy and test internet, video, and audio E 13 capabilities. The Court DIRECTS the parties to submit a joint case management statement by 14 || March 10, 2026. The parties should be prepared to discuss how to move this case forward 3 15 expeditiously. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. i 17 Dated: March 3, 2026

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28