PHILLIP ALLEN ET AL. V. SUNTREK TOURS, INC., ET AL.
Case No. CV 12-5165 CAS (JCGx)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 25, 2013
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
Catherine Jeang, Deputy Clerk
Sheri Kleeger, Court Reporter / Recorder
N/A, Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Paul Cullen
Attorneys Present for Defendants: Leslie Mann
Proceedings: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY CASE (filed February 24, 2013)
I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
On June 13, 2012, plaintiffs Phillip Allen and Brian Calder filed suit against defendant Suntrek Tours, Inc. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs, former group leaders for defendant’s touring company, seek to bring a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Seven months prior, these same plaintiffs, represented by their same counsel, initiated a state court action against Suntrek in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. See Decl. of Joseph Miller Ex. A (Complaint for Allen and Calder v. Suntrek Tours, Inc., Case No. BC 462363). In this suit, plaintiffs also allege that Suntrek failed to pay minimum and overtime wages in accordance with California law, in addition to asserting various оther claims for relief under California Labor law. Id. Defendant demurred to plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint in this action, contending that California’s wage and hour laws do not apply outside of California’s borders. On January 30, 2012, the trial court overruled the demurrer, finding that plaintiffs properly stated a claim because at least some work occurred in California. Miller Decl. ¶ 5.1
Plaintiffs thereafter filed the operative Second Amended Complaint in superior court on November 8, 2012 (“State Court SAC”). Id. ¶ 7. Defendant also notes the “extensive” discovery the pаrties have engaged in the state court action, including document exchange and a number of depositions of the named plaintiffs and defendant’s representatives. See Millеr Decl. ¶ 8.
As noted, the same plaintiffs filed this suit in federal court on June 13, 2012. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs failed to serve defendant, however, and the Court issued an Order to Show Cause on January 25, 2013, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Dkt. No. 8. Plaintiffs thereafter served defendant and filed the operative First Amended Collective Action Complaint (“FAC”) in this Court, substituting Peak DMC North America in plаce of Suntrek Tours, and also naming Intrepid Travel Proprietary Limited, an Australian company, as a defendant. Dkt. No. 13.2
As with their state action, plaintiffs seek to represent tour, trip, аnd group leaders who led tours throughout North America. FAC ¶ 7. Plaintiffs allege that defendants have failed to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of federal law. Id. ¶ 12. Under the authority of
A comparison of the operative complaints in both actions reveals substantial similarity, despite the fact that plaintiffs bring only state law claims in their state court action and a single federal claim in their federal action. See Mot. at 5–8. Both suits seek to recover for allegedly unpaid overtime and minimum wages based on the same alleged
On February 24, 2013, defendant filed a motion to stay this case in light of plaintiffs’ pending state court action. Dkt. No. 10. Plaintiffs opposed the motion on March 4, 2013, and defendant replied on Mаrch 11, 2013. The Court held a hearing on March 25, 2013. After considering the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
II. ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), defendant argues that the proceedings in this action should be stayed in favor of plaintiffs’ state court proceeding. First, the two actions are substantially similar, defendant contends, as the same counsel represents the same plaintiffs in both actions; SunTrek is a defendant in both actions; and the claims arise out of the same alleged conduct, time period, and legal duties.
Second, because these actions arе substantially similar, defendant contends that the Court should apply the eight factor test set forth in Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 863 (9th Cir. 2002). Under this test, a court must consider:
- which court first assumed jurisdiction over any property at stake;
- the inconvenience of the federal forum;
- the desire to avoid piecemeal litigation;
- the order in which the forums obtained jurisdiction;
- whether federal law or state law provides the rule of decision on the merits;
- whether the state court proceedings can adequately protect the rights of the federal litigants;
- the desire to avoid forum shopping; and
- whether the state court proceedings will resolve all issues before the federal court.
R.R. St. & Co. Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966, 978–79 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Holder, 305 F.3d at 870). While a district court has discretion to weigh these factors, any doubt should be resolved against a stay or dismissаl of the federal action. See id. at 979.
As in R.R. St. & Co., first two factors are irrelevant in this case, “because the dispute does not involve a specific piece of property, аnd both the federal and state
In opposition, plaintiffs argue that a stay is not warranted, focusing primarily on what plaintiffs contend are the distinct composition of the potential class of former tour guides in each case, as there will be no duplication between the two. Because thе later-filed federal case seeks to provide a remedy for work “performed by the class exclusively outside of the territorial confines of California,” plaintiffs contеnd that a stay is inappropriate. Plaintiffs also argue that the “legal analysis” required in each case will be dissimilar, and that there is a new “foreign co-defendant” in the federal litigation, whose addition is premised in part on the “liberality of the definition of employer under federal law as compared to state law.” Moreover, although plaintiffs do not disрute that they could have brought their FLSA claim in state court, given the progress of the proceedings there and the pending class certification motion, plaintiffs contend that this would inject significant delay into their state court proceeding, if they are able to amend at all. Furthermore, plaintiffs contend that they would have to redo a significant amount оf already completed discovery. In the event the Court is inclined to grant defendant’s motion, plaintiffs request that the Court equitably toll the FLSA claim of the class plaintiffs’ seek to represent in this collective action.
Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that a stay of this action is not warranted. To the extent that plaintiffs seek to represent two distinct classes—one for employees who performed their work at least in part in California, one for employees who performed worked wholly outside of California—the suits are not sufficiently similar to support a stay. Therefore, unlike those cases where courts have found a stay to be appropriate, the different compositiоn of each potential class here is alone grounds for denying defendant’s motion, despite any identity of named plaintiffs and their counsel.
III. CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, defendant’s motion to stay this case is denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00:10
Initials of Preparer: cmj