Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV28283, Date: 2024-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV28283    Hearing Date: March 19, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On November 17, 2023, Plaintiff Joshua Relles filed this representative action against Defendant MHC Property Management, L.P. for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”).  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to correctly and timely pay employees, failed to provide meal and rest periods, failed to pay premiums for meal and rest periods, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse expenses, and failed to maintain accurate records.

On February 26, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for a stay of proceedings pending the resolution of two other similar PAGA actions.

Defendant’s requests for judicial notice are granted.

When nearly identical actions are in courts of different jurisdictions, the court in the second action may, in its discretion and as a matter of comity, stay that action pending decision in the first action.  (Thomson v. Continental Ins. Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 738, 746 (Thomson); Mave Enterprises, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1408, 1423; Gregg v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 134, 136; Simmons v. Superior Court (1950) 96 Cal.App.2d 119, 123-124.)  In doing so, 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.’  [Citation.]”  (Thomson, supra, 66 Cal.2d 738, 746-747.)

“Under the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, when two California 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.  The rule is based upon the public policies of avoiding conflicts that might arise between courts if they were free to make contradictory decisions or awards relating to the same controversy, and preventing vexatious litigation and multiplicity of suits.”  (People ex rel. Garamendi v. American Autoplan, Inc. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 760, 769-770 (Garamendi).)

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has waived the issue of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction because it did not demur or raise the issue in its answer.  (Opposition at pp. 8-9.)  However, Defendant may request a stay “by demurrer or answer or by motion to dismiss, stay or transfer.”  (Garamendi, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at p. 774.)

On May 26, 2022, Kristin Strawbuck, filed a class action complaint against Defendant’s parent company Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc (“ELS”) and “Doe Defendants” in Santa Clara County, and on August 3, 2022, she filed an amended complaint for PAGA penalties (Case No. 22CV398628).  (Motion at pp. 6-7; Itter Decl. ¶ 4; Lawson Decl., Ex. 1.)  The applicable statutory period governing Strawbuck’s PAGA action is May 30, 2021, through the present.  (Motion at p. 7.)

On September 29, 2023, Allisia Glenn filed a class action and PAGA action against Defendant in Sonoma County (Case No. 23CV00790).  (Motion at pp. 7-8; Lawson Decl., Ex. 4.)  The applicable statutory period governing Glenn’s PAGA action is July 26, 2022, through the present.  (Motion at p. 8.)

Both the Strawbuck and Glenn actions cover the same applicable statutory period as Plaintiff’s PAGA action.  They allege the same Labor Code violations premised on the same conduct.  (See Motion at pp. 11-12.)  Plaintiff argues that Defendant is not a defendant in the Strawbuck action.  However, Strawbuck was actually an employee of Defendant, and that action alleges a joint employer.  (Motion at p. 7, fn. 1; Itter Decl. ¶ 6; Reply at pp. 5-6.)

Additionally, Plaintiff is arbitrating his individual claims.  The Court agrees that litigating the representative claims while arbitrating individual claims could lead to inconsistent rulings and duplicative discovery.  (See Motion at pp. 12-13.)

These three cases allege the same violations, and the two earlier cases cover the same time period as this case.  The witnesses and evidence are likely to be substantially the same.  Therefore, a stay is appropriate, whether as a matter of abatement or under the Court’s discretion to minimize the risk of inconsistent verdicts and in the interests of judicial economy.

The motion is GRANTED.  This action is STAYED pending completion of the Strawbuck and Glenn actions, and pending the completion of Plaintiff’s individual arbitration.

A Status Conference Re: Other PAGA Litigation/Arbitration is scheduled for 03/20/2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 48 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 19th day of March 2024