Judge David S. Cunningham, Case JCCP5244 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Moving Party: Smithfield Distribution, LLC (“Petitioner” or “Smithfield Distribution”)

Opposing Party: Michelle Helaire (“Helaire”) and Robert Sarabia (“Sarabia”)

The Court recommends the San Bernardino Superior Court as the site for the coordination proceedings, and the designated reviewing court is the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

The “Included Actions” are four “wage and hour” class actions and four “wage and hour” representative actions pending in San Bernardino County and Los Angeles County.[1] Plaintiffs in the Included Actions seek to represent current and former California employees of Smithfield Distribution and other Smithfield entities.

On 8/1/22, the Chief Justice and Chair of the Judicial Council issued an order assigning this Court to sit as the coordination motion judge to determine whether the Included Actions are complex and, if so, whether coordination is appropriate.

Only “complex” cases may be coordinated. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) ¶ 12:374.5.) A “complex” case requires “exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.400(a).)

In deciding whether an action is a complex case under (a), the Court must consider, among other things, whether the action is likely to involve:

(1) Numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve;

(2) Management of a large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of documentary evidence;

(4) Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court; or

[A]n action is provisionally a complex case if it involves one or more of the following types of claims:

(7) Insurance coverage claims arising out of any of the claims listed in (c)(1) through (c)(6).

As noted above, four of the Included Actions allege class claims. (See Moving Brief, pp. 3-9.) This renders them provisionally complex.

The other four Included Actions are PAGA cases. “Where appropriate, cases brought under PAGA can be designated complex under the Rules of Court . . . .” (Huff v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5^th 745, 761.) The circumstances here support designating the four PAGA cases complex since they overlap with the four class cases. They involve the same Defendants and the same or similar current and former California employees and assert similar Labor Code violations.

[W]hether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.

[A]ll of the cases assert claims for alleged failures to pay minimum wages; all of the cases assert claims for failures to pay all wages at termination; and seven of the eight cases assert claims based on alleged failures to provide meal periods, rest breaks, and accurate wage statements. [Citation.] Equally important, there is substantial overlap among the allegedly affected current and former employees in the various cases who were purportedly subject to [the] same Labor Code violations by the same employers. The first-filed cases – the Sarabia (Helaire) Class action and Helaire PAGA Action – implicate all current and former “Smithfield” employees in California during the limitations periods that reach the furthest back. [Citation.] And each follow-on lawsuit attempts to vindicate alleged Labor Code violations committed against some subset of the Smithfield employees at issue in those first-filed cases. . . .

* “[T]here can be no ‘significant overlap in the legal theories asserted’ among the various Subject Actions, with some asserting claims on behalf of individual class members, and others in representative capacity on behalf of the State of California.” (Opposition Brief, p. 15.)

* “Nor is there any overlap between the representative suits Petitioner seeks to coordinate and the putative class actions with respect to the possible recovery at issue.” (Ibid.) “Courts in California have unwaveringly held that a plaintiff in a representative PAGA suit seeks recovery not for an injury to the litigant’s own rights or recovery, but rather ‘directly enforce[s] the state’s interest in penalizing and deterring employers who violate California’s labor laws.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid., emphasis in original.)

* “[T]he putative class actions and the representative PAGA actions will only diverge further as they proceed in litigation to settlement.” (Id. at p. 16.) “In representative cases under PAGA, courts are vested with judicial discretion in assessing the fairness of civil penalties awarded [citation], whereas a trial court’s discretion in reviewing a class action settlement is limited. [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

* “[T]he first-filed cases, the Sarabia (Helaire) Class Action and Helaire PAGA Action, implicate all current and former Smithfield employees in California during the limitations period.” (Ibid., italics in original, underlined case names added.) “This would necessarily mean that any potential resolution in the first-filed actions could conclusively resolve the issues for all such that coordination is not appropriate. Rather, a continued stay on those actions would be the proper action.” (Ibid.)

The Court agrees with Petitioner. This factor favors coordination because the Included Actions allege several overlapping class and representative claims. Common legal questions result from the similar causes of action and common questions of fact. The Court anticipates significant motion practice on substantial, common legal issues. These issues should be heard by one judge to ensure uniformity.

Helaire and Sarabia’s attempt to distinguish the class claims and the PAGA claims is unavailing. There is nothing remarkable or problematic about litigating related class claims and PAGA claims in a coordinated proceeding. In fact, in the Court’s experience, it is routine to coordinate class actions and PAGA actions that are based on similar “wage and hour” allegations.

Moreover, the Court believes coordination will promote, not hinder, the possibility that resolution of the first-filed cases “could conclusively resolve” the other cases. (Ibid.)

[C]oordination will reduce the time, effort, and expense necessary to prosecute and defend this litigation. Among other things, a single coordination trial judge will be able to: (1) expedite the disposition of any dispositive threshold issues; (2) determine the extent to which the follow-on cases asserting duplicative claims should remain stayed; (3) appoint liaison counsel . . . to streamline the proceedings, including discovery, to the extent the follow-on cases present unique issues that should not be stayed; (4) establish a central depository or depositories of documents and other materials to achieve efficiencies; and (5) authorize the issuance of a single Belaire-West privacy notice to minimize employee confusion. . . .

Helaire and Sarabia argue that coordination is unnecessary because the Included Actions are only pending in two counties. (See Opposition Brief, p. 17 [claiming “this factor typically weighs in favor of coordination only where the litigation to be coordinated is substantially more widespread than here”], emphasis in original.)

They also argue that “Petitioner fails to identify how coordination would be beneficial to any witnesses at all.” (Id. at p. 18.)

This factor favors coordination. The Included Actions are pending in San Bernardino Superior Court and Los Angeles Superior Court. The Court is persuaded that managing discovery and deciding the common issues and claims in one forum will convenience the parties, their witnesses, and their counsel, and it will advance efficiency.[2]

This factor favors coordination. Despite the differing filing dates, the Included Actions are at an early stage. Discovery still needs to be conducted, and multiple motions still need to be filed and heard. (See, e.g., Moving Brief, p. 13 [representing that “[n]o formal discovery has occurred in any case, and not trial dates have been set”].) Coordination will free up multiple courtrooms from having to decide these similar matters.

The fact that the San Bernardino County cases are months older than the first Los Angeles County case fails to change the analysis. The work done in the San Bernardino County cases, to date, concerned amendments to pleadings and a motion to compel arbitration. (See, e.g., Opposition Brief, p. 19.) Most of the focus has been on mediation and “global resolution” (ibid.), which, again, the Court believes coordination will promote.

This factor favors coordination. Absent coordination, separate courts will have to duplicate case efforts on the same issues and claims. Parallel litigation of the same issues and claims in multiple locations will result in unnecessary consumption of judicial resources.

This factor is neutral. The parties’ briefs fail to address the specific, individual court calendars.

This factor favors coordination. Since the complaints raise the same or similar issues and claims, there is a risk that the courts will make duplicative or inconsistent key rulings, orders, or judgments if coordination is denied. Coordination will minimize this risk and advance the goal of “uniform and centralized resolution on appeal.” (McGhan Medical Corp. v. Superior Court (1992) 11 Cal.App.4^th 804, 814.)

This factor is neutral or favors coordination. None of the cases has settled so far. While mediation is scheduled in the San Bernardino County actions, the Court expects that coordination will advance the probability of a global resolution or, at least, will not impede it.

The Court finds that the coordination factors support coordination. The petition is granted.

Rule of Court 3.530(b) sets forth the factors that the coordination motion judge may consider in making a recommendation for the site of the coordination proceedings. The factors include: the number of included actions in particular locations; whether the litigation is at an advanced stage in a particular court; the efficient use of court facilities and judicial resources; the locations of witnesses and evidence; the convenience of the parties and witnesses; the parties' principal places of business; the office locations of counsel for the parties; and the ease of travel to and availability of accommodations in particular locations. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.530(b).)

Petitioner requests the Los Angeles Superior Court because six of the Included Actions are pending there, most of the counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants reside in Los Angeles County, and “a substantial amount of the evidence and witnesses are likely to be located in Los Angeles County.” (Moving Brief, pp. 14, 15.)

Helaire and Sarabia request San Bernardino Superior Court, the location of the first-filed cases, asserting that “virtually nothing has taken place” in the Los Angeles County actions, “which all have been stayed virtually since their respective filings.” (Opposition Brief, 20, 21.)

* San Bernardino County is nearby and convenient, especially with the apparent availability of remote appearances.

* The scheduled mediation may result in a global settlement and should not be disturbed or jeopardized by moving the first-filed cases to another jurisdiction.

The Court selects the Fourth District Court of Appeal as the reviewing court with appellate jurisdiction.

Petitioner asks to stay the San Bernardino County cases until coordination is decided. (See, e.g., Notice of Motion to Stay, p. 2 [claiming a stay will “promote the ends of justice” and “preserve the status quo”].)

The Court denies the stay request. Given that the Court recommends the San Bernardino Superior Court, and given the scheduled mediation, a stay is unnecessary.

[1] The eight Included Actions are listed in the petition. (See Petition, pp. 1-3.) The four representative actions were filed pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).

[2] The authorities cited by Helaire and Sarabia do not prohibit coordination of cases pending in two counties. The Court knows of no such authority.