Ronquillo v. Travelcenters of America, LLC ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GENOVEVA RONQUILLO, individually and Case No.: 1:19-CV-00770-LJO-JLT on behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER AFTER SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 13 v. 14 TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA, LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 The Court held a scheduling conference but did not schedule the case. Rather, it discussed 19 with counsel setting a deadline by which the motion to compel arbitration intended by the defense 20 and the motion to amend the complaint intended by the plaintiff, must be filed. Thus, the Court 21 ORDERS: 22 1. The motion to compel arbitration SHALL be filed no later than October 8, 2019 23 with a hearing no later than November 22, 2019; 24 2. The motion to file a first amended complaint to add a PAGA claim SHALL be filed 25 no later than October 8, 2019 with a hearing no later than November 22, 2019. If the plaintiff 26 chooses to file this motion, she SHALL certify she has reviewed the operative complaint in the 27 matter filed earlier in San Bernardino Superior Court seeking PAGA damages for the same 28 conduct at issue in this litigation and that she has a good faith belief that the San Bernardino action 1 is not meritorious or that the San Bernardino action is not likely to afford complete relief to the 2 collection.1 (See Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817- 3 818 (1976); R.R. St. & Co. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966, 978-979 (9th Cir.2011).) 4 3. The Court set a further scheduling conference on January 13, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. 5 Counsel may appear by teleconference by dialing (888) 557−8511 and entering Access Code 6 1652736, provided they lodge an intent to appear telephonically by email to 7 SHall@caed.uscourts.gov at least five days before the hearing. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: August 21, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 The Court’s concern is that there can be no double PAGA recovery and, admittedly, the decision to add a PAGA claim is based upon an attempt to stave off an effort to convince the Court that an arbitration agreement is applicable. 28 The Court has no ability to know if the arbitration agreement would justify remand to arbitration, but adding a claim that the plaintiff knows is already being pursued in another forum and which will provide complete relief to the