Judge: David S. Cunningham, Case: 23STCV15809, Date: 2024-07-02 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 23STCV15809    Hearing Date: July 2, 2024    Dept: 11

Cooper (23STCV15809)

Tentative Ruling Re: Demurrer/Motion to Stay

 

Date:                           7/2/24

Time:                          1:45 pm

Moving Party:           Lincoln Training Center and Rehabilitation Workshop (“Lincoln” or “Defendant”)

Opposing Party:        Ellis Cooper and Daniel Kays (collectively “Plaintiffs”)

Department:              11

Judge:                        David S. Cunningham III

________________________________________________________________________

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

Lincoln’s demurrer/motion to stay is sustained.  The Court stays Cooper (23STCV15809).

 

BACKGROUND

 

Cooper (23STCV15809) is a wage-and-hour putative class action against Lincoln.

 

Navarro (21STCV04685), an earlier-filed case against Lincoln, is also a wage-and-hour putative class action.

 

Cooper and Navarro are pending before this Court.

 

Here, Lincoln moves to abate or stay Cooper until Navarro is resolved.

 

LAW

 

Statutory Plea in Abatement

 

“Under the statutory plea in abatement, ‘[t]he pendency of another earlier action growing out of the same transaction and between the same parties is a ground for abatement of the second action.’”  (People ex rel. Garamendi v. American Autoplan, Inc. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 760, 770.) “A statutory plead in abatement requires that the prior pending action be “between the same parties on the same cause of action.”  (Ibid., emphasis in original.)

 

Exclusive Concurrent Jurisdiction

 

“Although the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction is similar in effect to the statutory plea in abatement, it has been interpreted and applied more expansively, and therefore may apply where the narrow grounds required for a statutory plea [in] abatement do not exist.”  (Ibid.)  “Unlike the statutory plea [in] abatement, the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction does not require absolute identity of parties, causes of action or remedies sought in the initial and subsequent actions.”  (Ibid.)  “If the court exercising original jurisdiction has the power to bring before it all the necessary parties, the fact that the parties in the second action are not identical does not preclude application of the rule.”  (Ibid.)  “Moreover, the remedies sought in the separate actions need not be precisely the same so long as the court exercising original jurisdiction has the power to litigate all the issues and grant all the relief to which any of the parties might be entitled under the pleadings.”  (Ibid.)

 

Inherent Authority

 

Trial courts have inherent authority to manage and control their proceedings, “including the inherent authority to stay an action when appropriate . . . [to] overcome problems of simultaneous litigation.”  (Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 18 Cal.4th 739, 758.)

 

DISCUSSION

 

Defendant contends Cooper should be abated or stayed because it is duplicative of Navarro, and Navarro is the first-filed case.  (See Demurrer/Motion to Strike, pp. 1, 6-11.)

 

Plaintiffs filed a late opposition on June 28, 2024.  The opposition addresses a different issue.  (See Opposition, pp. 5-12.)  Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendant’s stay request.  (See id. at p. 1.)

 

The Court agrees with Defendant.  As the following chart demonstrates, Navarro and Cooper allege overlapping classes and the same or similar causes of action:

 

Case

Class Definition

Causes of Action

 

Navarro

 

“[A]ll current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants within the State of California at any time commencing four (4) years preceding the filing of Plaintiff’s complaint up until the time that notice of the class action is provided to the class[.]” (Navarro First Amended Complaint, ¶ 31.)

 

1. Failure to pay overtime wages

 

2. Failure to pay minimum wages

 

3. Failure to provide meal periods

 

4. Failure to provide rest periods

 

5. Waiting time penalties

 

6. Wage statement violations

 

7. Failure to indemnify

 

8. Unfair competition

 

9. Penalties per Labor Code section 210

 

10. Penalties per Labor Code section 11971

 

11. Penalties per Labor Code section 1197.1

 

12. Penalties per Labor Code section 2699

 

Cooper

 

“All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time during the period from July 6, 2019 to final judgment and who reside in California.” (Cooper First Amended Complaint, ¶ 14.)

 

1.Unpaid overtime

 

2. Unpaid meal period premiums

 

3. Unpaid rest period premiums

 

4. Unpaid minimum wages

 

5. Final wages not timely paid

 

6. Wages not timely paid during employment

 

7. Non-compliant wage statements

 

8. Failure to keep requisite payroll records

 

9. Unreimbursed business expenses

 

10. Unfair competition

 

 

Moreover, the class claims arise out of the same alleged facts, and the primary rights involved are the same.  (See, e.g., Bush v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1374, 1384 [noting, in the context of a statutory plea in abatement, that “[t]he identity of two causes of action is determined by a comparison of the facts alleged which show the nature of the invasion of plaintiff's primary right”].)  Consequently, at minimum, it is appropriate to stay Cooper pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority.  The demurrer/motion to strike is sustained.

 

Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs fail to plead with particularity and that the causes of action seeking penalties under Labor Code sections 1174 and 1197.1 fail as a matter of law.  (See Demurrer/Motion to Strike, pp. 11-12; cf. Opposition, pp. 5-12 [asserting that Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts and that there is a private right of action as to the section 1174 and section 1197.1 claims].)

 

Given the preceding analysis, the Court declines to reach these arguments.