Judge: David S. Cunningham, Case: 23STCV18232, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18232    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: 11

Moxley (23STCV18232)

Tentative Ruling Re: Motion to Stay

 

Date:                           1-23-24

Time:                          9:00 am

Moving Party:           Johnson Controls Fire Protection, LP (“Defendant”)

Opposing Party:        Kevin Moxley (“Plaintiff”)

Department:              11

Judge:                        David S. Cunningham III

________________________________________________________________________

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

Defendant’s motion to stay is granted.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The instant case – Moxley (23STCV18232) – is a wage-and-hour putative class action. 

 

Here, Defendant moves to stay Moxley pending resolution of a similar, older wage-and-hour putative class action called Bergman (37-2023-00004575-CU-OE-CTL), which is pending in San Diego County.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Plaintiff contends the motion to stay should be denied because Defendant fails to establish the elements of abatement.  (See Opposition, pp. 9-12.)

 

The Court disagrees.  The motion is not based on abatement; it is based on (1) the rule of exclusive jurisdiction, and (2) the Court’s inherent authority.  (See Notice of Motion, p. 1.)

 

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.  [Citation.]”  (People ex rel. Garamendi v. American Autoplan, Inc. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 760, 770 (“Garamendi”).)  “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. [Citations.]”  (Ibid., emphasis added.)  “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., emphasis added.)

 

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, emphasis added.)

 

Analysis

 

Given these rules, the Court finds that Moxley should be stayed because:

 

* Bergman was filed first;

 

* Bergman is more advanced (see Opposition, p. 1 [noting that a hearing on class certification is scheduled for May 2024]; see also Motion, p. 2 [noting that discovery is taking place, and the parties plan to attend mediation a week after the class-certification hearing]);

 

* Defendant is the same in both cases;

 

* Bergman’s class definition and class period encompass Moxley’s class definition and class period (see Defendant’s RJN, Ex. A, ¶ 20 [“All California citizens currently or formerly employed by Defendants as nonexempt employees in the State of California” from August 7, 2018 to the present]; see also Moxley First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ¶ 19 [“All current and former non-exempt employees employed by Defendants in the State of California” from August 2, 2019 to the present]);

 

* Bergman and Moxley have seven identical causes of action (see Opposition, pp. 6-7; see also Reply, p. 1); 

 

* Plaintiff’s assertion that Moxley has two unique causes of action is disputed (see Reply, pp. 2-3), and, regardless, “absolute identity of . . . causes of action” is unnecessary (Garamendi, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at 770);

 

* absent a stay, the courts would need to duplicate case efforts on the same issues and claims, and there would be a genuine risk of making duplicative or inconsistent key rulings, orders, or judgments; and

 

* there is no prejudice.

 

Nevertheless, to the extent Plaintiff is interested in trying to coordinate Bergman and Moxley, the Court is willing to lift the stay for the limited purpose of letting him file a petition for coordination.