1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 WORKFORCE DEFENSE LEAGUE, No. 2:22-cv-00502-JAM-DB 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY 11 CLAYCO, INC.; and UNITED CONTRACTOR SERVICES, LLC, 12 Defendants. 13 14 Clayco, Inc. and United Contractor Services, LLC 15 (“Defendants”) petition the Court to stay Workforce Defense 16 League’s (“Plaintiff”) claim pending the completion of the 17 California Labor Commissioner’s Bureau of Field Enforcement 18 (“BOFE”) investigation of Defendants’ alleged conduct underlying 19 the instant case. See Mot. to Stay (“Mot.”), ECF No. 41. 20 Defendants contend that a stay would preserve judicial resources 21 and avoid inconsistent findings between the Court and BOFE. Id. 22 at 5. Plaintiff opposes the motion. See Opp’n, ECF No. 43. 23 Defendants replied. See Reply, ECF No. 44. 24 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 25 Defendants’ motion.1 26
27 1This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 28 for July 11, 2023. 1 I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 As the facts are already known to the parties, the Court 3 repeats them only as necessary to explain its decision. 4 Plaintiff is a labor management cooperation committee that 5 has brought this suit on behalf of Wage Claimants (“Claimants”) 6 against Defendants, alleging that Defendants did not pay 7 Claimants for all hours worked, overtime wages, or premiums for 8 missed rest breaks in the construction of an Amazon Fulfillment 9 Center in Sacramento. See generally Second Amended Complaint 10 (“SAC”), ECF No. 20. On January 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed its 11 complaint in state court; the case was removed to this Court one 12 month later. See Compl., Exhibit 1 to Notice of Removal, ECF 13 No. 1; Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. A few weeks later, 14 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”), to which 15 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss; the Court granted the 16 motion with leave to amend. See FAC, ECF No. 9, Mot. to Dismiss, 17 ECF No. 10; Order, ECF No. 19. Several weeks later, Plaintiff 18 filed the SAC, to which Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, 19 in the alternative, strike portions of the SAC. See SAC, Mot. to 20 Dismiss, ECF No. 25. On January 25, 2023, the Court issued an 21 order granting, in part, and denying, in part, Defendants’ 22 motion. See Order, ECF No. 29. A couple of weeks later, 23 Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 24 order, which the Court denied for lack of newly discovered 25 evidence, clear error, or intervening change in the controlling 26 law. See Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF No. 31, Order, ECF 27 No. 36. 28 /// 1 On September 20, 2022, a couple of weeks after the filing of 2 the SAC, BOFE notified Defendants of its intent to investigate 3 Defendants for potential Labor Code violations related to the 4 Sacramento project. Mot. at 6. Defendants are currently 5 cooperating with BOFE’s investigation, including requests for 6 relevant documents and information. Id. On April 20, 2023, 7 Defendants’ counsel alleged that they contacted Plaintiff’s 8 counsel requesting a stipulation to stay the matter pending the 9 outcome of BOFE’s investigation. Mot. at 7. Plaintiff’s counsel 10 notified Defendants that they would not agree to stay the instant 11 case. On May 17, 2023, Defendants filed the operative motion to 12 stay. 13 14 II. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES 15 A. Judicial Notice 16 Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of one 17 exhibit: BOFE’s 2020-21 Fiscal Year Report to the California 18 Legislature. See Request for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 42. The 19 exhibit constitutes a government record and is, therefore, a 20 proper subject for judicial notice. Anderson v. Holder, 673 F.3d 21 1089, 1094 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2012); Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. 22 Ass’n., 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). 23 24 III. OPINION 25 A. Legal Standard 26 “A district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings 27 as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton 28 v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). A court must consider 1 several factors when deciding whether to exercise that discretion 2 to issue a stay:(1) the “possible damage which might result from 3 granting a stay;” (2) the “hardship or inequity which a party 4 might suffer in being required to go forward;” and (3) the 5 “orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying 6 or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which 7 could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 8 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 9 The proponent of a stay bears the burden of showing that 10 these factors, on balance, warrant a stay. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 11 708. The moving party “must make out a clear case of hardship or 12 inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair 13 possibility that the stay” will damage an interested party. 14 Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936). 15 B. Analysis 16 1. Landis Factors 17 a. Possible Damage 18 The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently 19 allege that it or Claimants will suffer damages if the Court 20 grants a stay. Defendants’ claim that the BOFE investigation is 21 specifically assessing whether damages, premiums, or statutory 22 penalties should be set against Defendants for their alleged 23 conduct during the Sacramento project, all of which collectively 24 cover the relief that Plaintiff is seeking in the instant case. 25 Mot. at 8. Even if the stay would result in a delay in 26 Claimants’ receipt of their damages, Defendants correctly note 27 that such a delay is not afforded much weight. I.K. ex rel. E.K. 28 v. Sylvan Union Sch. Dist., 681 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1191 (E.D. Cal. 1 2010). Defendants further note that the Sacramento project has 2 been completed so there is no risk of further damages. Mot. at 3 9. Plaintiff does not contest any of Defendants’ contentions, so 4 the Court finds that this factor weighs in Defendants’ favor. 5 b. Hardship or Inequity 6 Landis states that “if there is even a fair possibility” 7 that a stay will damage a relevant party, the party seeking the 8 stay “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity” in 9 being required to go forward with the action. 299 U.S. at 255. 10 The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to put forth any 11 argument that it or Claimants will suffer damage if the Court 12 grants a stay in the instant case. On the other hand, the Court 13 acknowledges Defendants’ contention that denial of a stay would 14 subject Defendants to litigating the allegations of the instant 15 case in two concurrent forums, both in the Court and in the BOFE 16 investigation. Mot. at 9. Nevertheless, the Court finds that 17 this factor does not weigh strongly in favor of either party. 18 c. Orderly Course of Justice 19 The Court finds that granting a stay would promote the 20 orderly court of justice. Defendants claim that the BOFE 21 investigation spans the totality of potential Labor Code 22 violations and that, if any claims remain, the Court can address 23 them at the investigation’s conclusion. Mot. at 9. Plaintiff 24 does not address Defendants’ contentions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 WORKFORCE DEFENSE LEAGUE, No. 2:22-cv-00502-JAM-DB 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY 11 CLAYCO, INC.; and UNITED CONTRACTOR SERVICES, LLC, 12 Defendants. 13 14 Clayco, Inc. and United Contractor Services, LLC 15 (“Defendants”) petition the Court to stay Workforce Defense 16 League’s (“Plaintiff”) claim pending the completion of the 17 California Labor Commissioner’s Bureau of Field Enforcement 18 (“BOFE”) investigation of Defendants’ alleged conduct underlying 19 the instant case. See Mot. to Stay (“Mot.”), ECF No. 41. 20 Defendants contend that a stay would preserve judicial resources 21 and avoid inconsistent findings between the Court and BOFE. Id. 22 at 5. Plaintiff opposes the motion. See Opp’n, ECF No. 43. 23 Defendants replied. See Reply, ECF No. 44. 24 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 25 Defendants’ motion.1 26
27 1This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 28 for July 11, 2023. 1 I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 As the facts are already known to the parties, the Court 3 repeats them only as necessary to explain its decision. 4 Plaintiff is a labor management cooperation committee that 5 has brought this suit on behalf of Wage Claimants (“Claimants”) 6 against Defendants, alleging that Defendants did not pay 7 Claimants for all hours worked, overtime wages, or premiums for 8 missed rest breaks in the construction of an Amazon Fulfillment 9 Center in Sacramento. See generally Second Amended Complaint 10 (“SAC”), ECF No. 20. On January 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed its 11 complaint in state court; the case was removed to this Court one 12 month later. See Compl., Exhibit 1 to Notice of Removal, ECF 13 No. 1; Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. A few weeks later, 14 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”), to which 15 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss; the Court granted the 16 motion with leave to amend. See FAC, ECF No. 9, Mot. to Dismiss, 17 ECF No. 10; Order, ECF No. 19. Several weeks later, Plaintiff 18 filed the SAC, to which Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, 19 in the alternative, strike portions of the SAC. See SAC, Mot. to 20 Dismiss, ECF No. 25. On January 25, 2023, the Court issued an 21 order granting, in part, and denying, in part, Defendants’ 22 motion. See Order, ECF No. 29. A couple of weeks later, 23 Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 24 order, which the Court denied for lack of newly discovered 25 evidence, clear error, or intervening change in the controlling 26 law. See Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF No. 31, Order, ECF 27 No. 36. 28 /// 1 On September 20, 2022, a couple of weeks after the filing of 2 the SAC, BOFE notified Defendants of its intent to investigate 3 Defendants for potential Labor Code violations related to the 4 Sacramento project. Mot. at 6. Defendants are currently 5 cooperating with BOFE’s investigation, including requests for 6 relevant documents and information. Id. On April 20, 2023, 7 Defendants’ counsel alleged that they contacted Plaintiff’s 8 counsel requesting a stipulation to stay the matter pending the 9 outcome of BOFE’s investigation. Mot. at 7. Plaintiff’s counsel 10 notified Defendants that they would not agree to stay the instant 11 case. On May 17, 2023, Defendants filed the operative motion to 12 stay. 13 14 II. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES 15 A. Judicial Notice 16 Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of one 17 exhibit: BOFE’s 2020-21 Fiscal Year Report to the California 18 Legislature. See Request for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 42. The 19 exhibit constitutes a government record and is, therefore, a 20 proper subject for judicial notice. Anderson v. Holder, 673 F.3d 21 1089, 1094 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2012); Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. 22 Ass’n., 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). 23 24 III. OPINION 25 A. Legal Standard 26 “A district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings 27 as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton 28 v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). A court must consider 1 several factors when deciding whether to exercise that discretion 2 to issue a stay:(1) the “possible damage which might result from 3 granting a stay;” (2) the “hardship or inequity which a party 4 might suffer in being required to go forward;” and (3) the 5 “orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying 6 or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which 7 could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 8 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 9 The proponent of a stay bears the burden of showing that 10 these factors, on balance, warrant a stay. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 11 708. The moving party “must make out a clear case of hardship or 12 inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair 13 possibility that the stay” will damage an interested party. 14 Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936). 15 B. Analysis 16 1. Landis Factors 17 a. Possible Damage 18 The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently 19 allege that it or Claimants will suffer damages if the Court 20 grants a stay. Defendants’ claim that the BOFE investigation is 21 specifically assessing whether damages, premiums, or statutory 22 penalties should be set against Defendants for their alleged 23 conduct during the Sacramento project, all of which collectively 24 cover the relief that Plaintiff is seeking in the instant case. 25 Mot. at 8. Even if the stay would result in a delay in 26 Claimants’ receipt of their damages, Defendants correctly note 27 that such a delay is not afforded much weight. I.K. ex rel. E.K. 28 v. Sylvan Union Sch. Dist., 681 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1191 (E.D. Cal. 1 2010). Defendants further note that the Sacramento project has 2 been completed so there is no risk of further damages. Mot. at 3 9. Plaintiff does not contest any of Defendants’ contentions, so 4 the Court finds that this factor weighs in Defendants’ favor. 5 b. Hardship or Inequity 6 Landis states that “if there is even a fair possibility” 7 that a stay will damage a relevant party, the party seeking the 8 stay “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity” in 9 being required to go forward with the action. 299 U.S. at 255. 10 The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to put forth any 11 argument that it or Claimants will suffer damage if the Court 12 grants a stay in the instant case. On the other hand, the Court 13 acknowledges Defendants’ contention that denial of a stay would 14 subject Defendants to litigating the allegations of the instant 15 case in two concurrent forums, both in the Court and in the BOFE 16 investigation. Mot. at 9. Nevertheless, the Court finds that 17 this factor does not weigh strongly in favor of either party. 18 c. Orderly Course of Justice 19 The Court finds that granting a stay would promote the 20 orderly court of justice. Defendants claim that the BOFE 21 investigation spans the totality of potential Labor Code 22 violations and that, if any claims remain, the Court can address 23 them at the investigation’s conclusion. Mot. at 9. Plaintiff 24 does not address Defendants’ contentions. The Court agrees with 25 Defendants and finds there is sufficient overlap between the 26 allegations and relief sought in the instant case and the BOFE 27 investigation that “waiting for one to be resolved would work to 28 simplify issues in the other or preserve judicial resources.” nee een nen EI IE EO EE
1 United States v. California, No. 218CVO0490JAMKIN, 2018 WL 2 5310675, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2018); see also Leyva v. 3 Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th 4 Cir. 1979) (finding that a district court may enter a stay 5 | pending resolution of independent judicial, administrative, or 6 arbitration proceedings which bear upon the case and that such 7 || proceedings do not need to be “controlling of the action before 8 the court.”). 9 2. Primary Jurisdiction 10 Because the Court finds that a stay is appropriate under 11 Landis, it does not discuss the merits of Defendants’ primary 12 jurisdiction doctrine argument. 13 14 IV. ORDER 15 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS 16 | Defendants’ motion. The proceedings between Plaintiff and 17 Defendants will be STAYED pending the completion of the 18 California Labor Commissioner’s Bureau of Field Enforcement 19 (“BOFE”) investigation of Defendants’ conduct at the Sacramento 20 Amazon Fulfillment Center. Within ten days after the BOFE 21 investigation is completed the parties shall file a joint status 22 report with this Court. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: August 21, 2023 25 cp, JOHN A. MENDEZ 27 SENIOR UNITED*STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28