Lott v. Advantage Sales & Marketing, LLC
2:10-cv-00980
N.D. Ala.Jan 26, 2011Background
- Lott filed April 14, 2010, on her own behalf and others similarly situated, defining a collective of Walmart Retail Sales Merchandisers and related roles who allegedly worked over 40 hours without overtime.
- Since filing, at least 22 opt-in plaintiffs joined the action.
- Advantage moved November 2, 2010 to dismiss or stay, arguing the Lott collective is subsumed by a pending Campbell v. Advantage action in the Southern District of Indiana.
- Campbell, 09-01430-LJM-DML, filed November 17, 2009, already conditionally certified a nationwide collective of Advantage employees who reported time through E-Labor and were unpaid overtime.
- Lott and Campbell allege similar FLSA violations and seek back pay, damages, fees, and costs; Advantage contends the two actions are duplicative and should be heard in Indiana.
- The court adopts the first-to-file framework to address duplicative actions and determines the appropriate disposition under that rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the first-to-file rule applies. | Lott asserts non-identical parties negate applicability. | Advantage asserts substantial similarity warrants application. | Yes, the first-to-file rule applies. |
| Whether a transfer is appropriate. | Campbell should govern; transfer not necessary. | The case should be transferred to the Campbell court. | No transfer; not appropriate. |
| Disposition of Lott's collective action claims. | Continue the collective action or align with Campbell. | Dismiss collective action; rely on Campbell or opt-in/individual claims. | Dismiss the collective action without prejudice; allow Lott to join Campbell or amend to assert only individual claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnett v. State of Alabama, 171 F. Supp. 2d 1292 (S.D. Ala. 2001) (premising court’s discretion under first-to-file rule to avoid duplicative litigation.)
- Manuel v. Converges Corp., 430 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2005) (strong presumption in favor of the first-filed forum when issues and parties overlap.)
- Fuller v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 686 (E.D. Tenn. 2005) (two actions may be duplicative despite differing named plaintiffs and class definitions.)
- Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp., 121 F.3d 947 (5th Cir. 1997) (two actions with substantially overlapping parties and issues warrant consideration of first-to-file.)
- West Gulf Maritime Ass’n v. ILA Deep Sea Local 24, 751 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1985) (first-to-file rule promotes judicial efficiency and avoids piecemeal resolutions.)
- Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d 622 (9th Cir. 1991) (court may exercise discretion to dismiss a duplicative later action.)
- Alvarez v. Gold Belt, LLC, 2009 WL 1473933 (D.N.J. 2009) (discussed as context for first-to-file principles; not controlling when cases are in different courts.)