Judge Lon F. Hurwitz, Case 22-01244784 2022-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lon F. Hurwitz, Case: 22-01244784, Date: 2022-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Order to Stay Proceedings

Status Conference

RULING ON MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS:

Defendant B. Braun Medical Inc. seeks an order staying this action based on the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction because “all of the claims in this Halili actions (sic) involve overlapping and virtually identical legal and factual issues that are asserted in the pending Riley/Ferreira action, [and therefore] simultaneous pursuit of the actions will continue to lead to duplicative and inefficient efforts by B. Braun and the Court.” (ROA 25.) The motion is DENIED.

Background

The Riley/Ferreira action is a consolidation of Riley v. B. Braun Medical Inc., et al., No. 2019-01069273 and Ferreira v. B. Braun Medical Inc., et al., No. 2020-01141094, which the Court consolidated on 10-01-21.

Riley is a PAGA-only action against Defendant and staffing company Manpower US, Inc. The PAGA claim is based on violations for (i) failure to pay all wages; (ii) failure to provide meal periods; (iii) failure to provide rest periods; (iv) failure to timely pay wages; and (v) failure to provide accurate wage statements.

Ferreira is a class and PAGA action filed more than a year after Riley. The action was filed on behalf of plaintiff and all other non-exempt employees in California. Ferreira seeks to recover on claims of (i) failure to pay minimum wages; (ii) failure to pay overtime; (iii) failure to provide meal periods; (iv) failure to provide rest breaks; (v) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (vi) failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; (vii) unfair competition; and (viii) penalties under PAGA.

This PAGA-only action was filed in March 2022, years after both Riley and Ferreira were filed. The Complaint alleges the failure to pay (i) minimum and (ii) overtime wages; (iii) failure to pay/provide meal periods; (iv) failure to pay/provide rest breaks; (v) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (vi) failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; and (vii) failure to maintain comfortable temperatures.

Exclusive Concurrent Jurisdiction

“Under the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, ‘when two superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties involved in litigation, the first to assume jurisdiction has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties involved until such time as all necessarily related matters have been resolved.’ [Citation.]” (Plant Insulation Co., supra, 224 Cal.App.3d at pp. 786-787.) “The rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction may constitute a ground for abatement of the subsequent action.” (Id. at 787.)

The rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction applies when actions are pending in two superior courts. [See Wozniak v. Lucutz (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1041; no priority problem arose when judges were part of the same court and there was no risk of simultaneous proceedings or conflicting decisions; 2 Witkin, Cal. Proc. 6th Jurisd. § 442 (2021)].

Here, the Riley/Ferreira action and this action are not only pending in the same superior court, but in the same department. The rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction is therefore inapplicable. While Defendant places heavy reliance on Shaw v. Superior Court (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 245, 257, to argue exclusive concurrent jurisdiction applies to PAGA cases, this argument ignores the fact that the Shaw court, unlike here, dealt with actions in different jurisdictions, i.e., Los Angeles and Contra Costa. Defendant’s request for a stay on this ground is therefore denied.

Discretionary Stay

To the extent Defendant asks the Court to otherwise exercise its discretion to stay this case in favor of Riley/Ferreira, the Court declines to do so.

“Granting a stay in a case where the issues in two actions are substantially identical is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Thompson v. Continental Ins. Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 738, 746; see also Simmons v. Superior Court (1950) 96 Cal.App.2d 119, 125 [“If proceedings should be stayed . . . it is in order to avoid a multiplicity of suits and prevent vexatious litigation, conflicting judgments, confusion and unseemly controversy between litigants and courts.”].)

First, while Defendant argues it would be unjust for it to defend overlapping actions at the same time, concerns about repetitive discovery are better addressed through procedures like coordination or consolidation.

Second, while Defendant argues there is potential for conflicts in rulings between this case and Riley/Ferreira, all cases are now pending in this Court, and therefore the risk of conflicting rulings on truly identical issues seems remote.

Third, Defendant argues the aggrieved employees and the public interest would be better served by a stay because of excess attorneys’ fees and judicial economy if only the Riley/Ferreira action moves forward. Again. the Court finds these concerns are better addressed through procedures like coordination or consolidation.

Accordingly, the Court finds that a stay would not avoid conflicting judgments, confusion, or unseemly controversy between litigants and courts.

Plaintiff to give notice.