RBB2, LLC v. CSC Serviceworks, Inc. ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RBB2, LLC, individually and on behalf of all Case No.:1:18-cv-0915 - LJO - JLT others similarly situated, 12 ORDER TO THE PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE Plaintiff, WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 DISMISSED OR STAYED v. 14 CSC SERVICEWORKS, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 The Court ordered the parties to show cause why the case should not be transferred to the 18 Northern District of Ohio because a case, Summit Gardens Associates, et al. v. CSC Service works, 19 Inc., Case Number 1:17-cv-02553 DCN, was filed earlier and makes similar claims. The Court noted 20 that CSC contends the class description alleged in the Summit Gardens case encompasses the class 21 described in this litigation. 22 The parties responded and were uniform and emphatic that this case should not be transferred, 23 in part because “this action involves a laundry service agreement for property located in California, and 24 a business relationship unique to RBB2 and CSC focused solely in California.” (Doc. 43 at 3) Both 25 sides argue that because this case could not have been brought in Ohio, the first-to-file rule does not 26 apply. Indeed, they are correct that in in In re Bozic, 888 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2018), the Court 27 determined that the first-to-file rule allows a Court to transfer a case only if the first-filed case is a 28 proper venue for the second-filed case. Nevertheless, Bozic did not preclude courts from dismissing or 1 staying the second-filed case under the first-to-file rule. From the recent filing by the Summit Gardens 2 plaintiffs, through attorney Mr. Allard, it appears that one of these options may be best. 3 First, Mr. Allard notes that this Court and the Ohio Court have already been forced to consider 4 the same arguments related to whether the language of the lease agreements allowed for the challenged 5 administrative fee. (Doc. 50 at 2). This Court especially and, indeed, no federal court, has time to 6 waste and duplicating efforts clearly does this. 7 Second, the Ohio court has condoned a discovery plan that includes the leases issued in 8 California. Id. at 4. Mr. Allard reports that CSC has already produced over 60,000 pages of documents 9 representing service leases issued throughout the country and Summit Gardens’ counsel has “engaged 10 in a thorough review of those leases necessary to establish liability and to confirm suitability for class 11 certification. Additionally, the parties have propounded detailed and extensive discovery including 12 requests for admission, interrogatories, and requests for production of documents.” Id. Duplicating this 13 effort would waste the Court’s precious resources because it would be required to oversee a second 14 discovery effort that despite that it is occurring already in Ohio. If this case is stayed, once Summit 15 Gardens is resolved, the Court could allow limited discovery on the quasi-contract theory, if necessary. 16 Third, Mr. Allard reports that “CSC and RBB2 secretly negotiated a global, nationwide 17 settlement [which was] revealed in July 2019.” (Doc. 50 at 5) Finally, Mr. Allard describes a course of 18 conduct by counsel to this case which, if true, seems to actively disregard the limited resources of all 19 courts and cannot be condoned. Therefore, the Court ORDERS: 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 1. No later than September 16, 2019, the parties SHALL show cause why the matter 2 should not be dismissed or stayed. They should address the issues raised here including how this 3 Court’s resources can best be preserved and how any duplication of effort with the Ohio court (and any 4 other court in which, purportedly, 20 other similar cases are proceeding) can be avoided. Alternatively, 5 they may file a notice of settlement.1 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: August 30, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Indeed, if, in fact they settled this action in July, they are in violation of Local Rule 160 which requires them to