Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 22-01264317, Date: 2023-07-14 Tentative Ruling
1. Defendants Albertsons
Companies, Inc. and The Vons Companies, Inc.'s Notice of First Amended
Demurrer and First Amended Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint ROA 122
2. Defendant Kevin M. Curry's Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Plaintiff's
Complaint ROA 96
3. Status Conference
Before the Court are two demurrers to the complaint of Plaintiff Glenn Knott.
Defendants Albertsons Companies, Inc. and The Vons Companies, Inc. (collectively, “Vons”) seek a stay of this action based on (1) a plea in abatement, (2) the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, and (3) the Court’s inherent power. They also argue Knott fails to plead facts sufficient to state a PAGA claim insofar as his PAGA claim is based on alleged violation of the Equal Pay Act.
Defendant Kevin Curry contends Knott fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against him, both because Knott does not plead sufficient facts to trigger individual liability under Labor Code § 558.1 and alternatively because Labor Code § 558.1 does not apply to Knott’s sixth through eighth causes of action.
For the reasons set forth below, Vons’ request for a stay of proceedings in favor of earlier-filed actions is GRANTED under both the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction and the Court’s inherent power. The Court does not reach the Vons’ remaining arguments or any of Curry’s arguments, which are preserved until such time as the stay is lifted.
Vons’ original request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to Exhibits 1-9. Vons’ reply request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to Exhibits A-C. The Court declines to rule on the remaining requests, which are immaterial to this ruling.
A status conference will be held on November 28, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in CX-104. A joint status conference statement, which should include an update on the progress of all of the related cases, shall be filed on or before November 21, 2023.
I. Factual Background
This is a wage-and-hour class action with a PAGA component. Knott, a former employee of one of Vons’ stores in Gardena, brings claims for minimum wage violations, meal break violations, rest break violations, wage statement violations, waiting time penalties, injunctive relief, UCL violations, and PAGA penalties. In addition to his substantive Labor Code claims, the PAGA claim is based on violations of the Equal Pay Act (alleging that Vons’ pay practices are racially discriminatory), seating regulations, sick pay laws, pay deduction laws (alleging that Vons automatically deducts union dues without written consent), and recordkeeping requirements. Knott has also sued Curry, alleged to be Vons’ CEO, on the same claims.
In its moving papers, Vons identifies eight previously filed class action and PAGA cases that overlap with this one. Three of them, Rodarte, McCarthy and Mendoza, have been jointly settled. The San Bernardino County Superior Court has granted preliminary approval of the Rodarte/McCarthy/Mendoza settlement. A final approval hearing is set for October 23, 2023. (Reply RJN, Ex. C.)
II. Discussion
A. Exclusive Concurrent Jurisdiction
Vons argues this case should be abated under the rule of 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. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 786-787.) “The rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction may constitute a ground for abatement of the subsequent action.” (Id., at p. 787.)
“Although the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction is similar in effect to the statutory plea in abatement, it has been interpreted and applied more expansively, and therefore may apply where the narrow grounds required for a statutory plea of abatement do not exist. [Citation.] Unlike the statutory plea of abatement, the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction does not require absolute identity of parties, causes of action or remedies sought in the initial and subsequent actions. [Citation.] If the court exercising original jurisdiction has the power to bring before it all the necessary parties, the fact that the parties in the second action are not identical does not preclude application of the rule. Moreover, the remedies sought in the separate actions need not be precisely the same so long as the court exercising original jurisdiction has the power to litigate all the issues and grant all the relief to which any of the parties might be entitled under the pleadings.” (Id., at p. 788.)
“‘An order of abatement issues as a matter of right [i.e., mandatory] not as a matter of discretion [i.e., discretionary] where the conditions for its issuance exist.’ This is the case whether a right to abatement exists under the statutory plea in abatement or the judicial rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction.” (People ex rel. Garamendi v. American Autoplan, Inc. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 760, 770-771 [internal citations omitted].)
Based upon the Court’s review of the file in this matter and the judicially noticeable materials submitted by Vons, the Court finds the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction applies here. All the cases cited by Vons predate this one. All the courts hearing the prior cases would have the power to bring all the parties in this case before it (including both Knott and Curry), litigate all issues, and grant all relief sought in the pleadings.
It appears that none of these cases involves allegations of forced union dues deductions or racially discriminatory pay. But again, “the remedies sought in the separate actions need not be precisely the same so long as the court exercising original jurisdiction has the power to litigate all the issues and grant all the relief to which any of the parties might be entitled under the pleadings.” (Plant Insulation Co., supra, 224 Cal.App.3d at p. 788 [emphasis added].) Whether or not forced deductions and racially discriminatory pay are at issue in the earlier actions, there is no doubt the courts in the earlier actions have the power to decide such issues if raised.
Nor do any of the earlier cases involve Knott as a named plaintiff or Curry as a named defendant. But as with the issues to be litigated, the question is whether “the court exercising original jurisdiction has the power to bring before it all the necessary parties.” (Ibid. [emphasis added].) Federal and state courts in California have jurisdiction over Knott and Curry, who are allegedly residents of California.
Because the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction applies, this matter must be abated pending resolution of the prior cases.
B. Inherent Power
Vons also appeals to the Court’s inherent power to stay proceedings. (See OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 141 [“Failing that, the court could have issued a stay under its inherent power. ‘[A] court ordinarily has inherent power, in its discretion, to stay proceedings when such a stay will accommodate the ends of justice.’”].)
As an alternative basis for a stay, the Court exercises its inherent power to stay this case pending resolution of the prior proceedings. Given the Rodarte/McCarthy/Mendoza settlement, and the existence of numerous prior overlapping class actions, this is a case where the ends of justice would be particularly well served by a stay.
C. Remaining Arguments
Vons and Curry also raise merits-based challenges to the pleadings. Because the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction applies, the Court must stay proceedings in favor of the earlier cases. The Court cannot consider the remaining arguments at this time, so they are preserved until the stay is lifted.