Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV37775, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV37775 Hearing Date: April 17, 2023 Dept: 39
Trevor Johnson v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
Case No. 22STCV37775
Motion to Stay or, in the Alternative, Demurrer
Plaintiff Trevor Johnson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (“Defendant”) under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). Plaintiff separately filed a putative class action against Defendant in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which is Trevor Johnson v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Case No. 22-CV-07327-JLS-PD (the “federal case”). Defendant moves to stay the instant case pending resolution of the federal case, which Plaintiff opposes.
“Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) “It is black letter law that, when a federal action has been filed covering the same subject matter as is involved in a California action, the California court has the discretion but not the obligation to stay the state court action . . . . In exercising its discretion the court should consider the importance of discouraging multiple litigation designed solely to harass an adverse party, and of avoiding unseemly conflicts with the courts of other jurisdictions. It should also consider whether the rights of the parties can best be determined by the court of the other jurisdiction because of the nature of the subject matter, the availability of witnesses, or the stage to which the proceedings in the other court have already advanced . . . . The California Supreme Court also has isolated another critical factor favoring a stay of the state court action in favor of the federal action[:] the federal action is pending in California not some other state . . . .” (Caiafa Prof. Law Corp. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (1993) 15 Cal. App. 4th 800, 804.)
Here, Plaintiff filed the federal case (originally Case Number 22STCV25969 before it was removed to federal court) before the instant case. Both cases are pending in California. Plaintiff’s factual allegations in this action are identical to those in the federal case. Accordingly, there is a risk of conflicting rulings if both cases proceed simultaneously. This is particularly true in the instant case, as Plaintiff must show that Defendant violated provisions of the Labor Code in order to prevail on his PAGA claim. Accordingly, the Court stays the instant case based upon its inherent authority.
In the alternative, the Court sustains Defendant’s demurrer. “A plea in abatement pursuant to section 430.10, subdivision (c), may be made by demurrer or answer when there is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action. [Citations] In determining whether the causes of action are the same for purposes of pleas in abatement, the rule is that such a plea may be maintained only where a judgment in the first action would be a complete bar to the second action. [Citation] Where a demurrer is sustained on the ground of another action pending, the proper order is not a dismissal, but abatement of further proceedings pending termination of the first action.” (Plant Insulation Co. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 787-788.) Both cases are based on the same allegations, i.e., that Defendant improperly rounded down time that Plaintiff and other employees worked to the nearest half hour. Plaintiff relies on certain authorities from federal courts. “Neither federal district court procedures nor decisions are binding on this court.” (Thomas G. Ferruzzo, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 503.) Likewise, “a written trial court ruling has no precedential value . . . .” (Santa Ana Hospital Medical Center v. Belshe (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 819, 831.) Putting that aside, this Court has inherent authority to manage litigation, and the Court exercises its authority to stay this case for the reasons discussed.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:
1. The Court grants Defendant’s motion to stay. In the alternative, the Court sustains Defendant’s demurrer but orders a stay rather than dismissal.
2. The Court takes the case management conference off-calendar.
3. The Court sets an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed for December 11, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. The Court provides notice: If Plaintiff’s counsel does not appear, either remotely or in-person, absent good cause, the Court will assume this matter has been resolved and will dismiss the case with prejudice.
4. The Court orders the parties to file a joint status report on or before December 1, 2023, informing the Court as to the status of the federal case.
5. Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.