Opinion
CIV. NO. 2:15-383 WBS DAD
07-28-2015
RICARDO CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADT LLC and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Ricardo Castillo brought this action against defendant ADT LLC ("ADT") on behalf of similarly situated employees alleging failure to pay overtime, to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and to reimburse employees for work-related expenses in violation of California labor law. (See Compl. (Docket No. 1).) Defendant filed this motion to dismiss or stay the action, upon the ground that the present action is "substantially duplicative" of an earlier filed related action, Garnett v. ADT LLC, Civ. No. 2:14-2851 WBS DAD (E.D. Cal. filed Dec. 5, 2014) ("Garnett"). (Def.'s Mem. at 1:2-3 (Docket No. 21-2)); see Adams v. Cal. Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008) ("[T]he district court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of the previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both actions.").
At the hearing, defendant appeared to shift positions to request only an extension of time to respond to pending interrogatories, in order to allow for sufficient time to prepare for a mediation in the Garnett action set for August 13, 2015. The court finds this request reasonable and sees no reason why an extension would prejudice plaintiff. The court will therefore grant defendant a thirty-day extension of time to respond to the pending interrogatories. The parties stated they would stipulate to modifying the scheduling order accordingly.
Beyond that request, the court finds no basis for granting defendant's motion for a dismissal or stay. Outright dismissal of the present action is inappropriate because the named plaintiff brings additional claims not asserted in Garnett. Neither is a stay warranted, because the allegedly overlapping wage-statement and reimbursement claims in Garnett and Castillo involve different factual allegations and therefore do not arise from the same transactional nucleus of fact and cannot be "duplicative." See Adams, 487 F.3d at 689 (noting that the most important consideration is whether the two suits arise from the same transactional nucleus of fact); see, e.g., Padilla v. Nevada, Civ. No. 3:07-00442 RAM, 2009 WL 656288, at *4 (D. Nev. Mar. 11, 2009) (holding that two allegedly duplicative actions are "factually distinct" and do not warrant dismissal because the later-filed action "challenges an additional set of sanctions" imposed on plaintiff, an inmate, and relies on a "broader set of facts" than the earlier action).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss or stay be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall have an additional thirty days to respond to pending interrogatories. Parties may submit a stipulation for the court's approval to modify the scheduling order accordingly. Dated: July 28, 2015
/s/ _________
WILLIAM B. SHUBB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE