Judge: Randall J. Sherman, Case: 2022-01253001, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Luxottica of America, Inc.’s unopposed Demurrer to Abate, or in the Alternative, Motion to Stay the Action is overruled as to the demurrer, and granted as to the motion to stay.  Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted as to Exhibits A-G, and denied as to Exhibit H.  This action is ordered stayed pending the outcome of the earlier-filed related cases of (1) Frame v. Luxottica of America, Inc., San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2020-00026895; (2) Khesrawi v. Luxottica of America, Inc., Alameda Superior Court Case No. RG20072437; (3) Garcia Nunes v. Luxottica of America, Inc., San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2020-00008375; and (4) Gabourel v. Luxottica of America, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 21STCV43173, removed to Central District of California, Case No. 2:22-cv-00471, or until further order of this court.  The Case Management Conference set for September 2, 2022 is ordered off calendar.  A Stay Review Hearing is set for February 23, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.  The parties must file a Joint Status Report at least a week before the hearing, and may request a continuance if appropriate.

A demurrer pursuant to CCP §430.10(c) on the ground of another action pending, also called a statutory plea of abatement, requires an absolute identity of the parties.  Plant Insulation Co. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal. App. 3d 781, 788.  The plaintiff here is different from the plaintiffs in the other pending actions.  Defendant’s demurrer on the ground of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction is not an authorized ground for a demurrer under CCP §430.10, and will not be considered.

Plaintiff here alleges many if not all of the same labor law violations that the other plaintiffs allege in their PAGA pleadings.  It is therefore in the interests of comity and the conservation of judicial resources to avoid potential conflicting rulings and allow the earlier-filed cases to proceed first, eliminating the risk of multiple and inconsistent judgments in different cases.  Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal. App. 3d 455, 460.  As a result, a stay is warranted, in the court’s discretion.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived.