Xiong v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAI KATY XIONG, an individual, No. 2:19-cv-00508-JAM-EFB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY 14 G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC., a corporation, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Mai Katy Xiong (“Xiong” or “Plaintiff”) brings 18 this putative class action against G4S Secure Solutions (USA) 19 Inc. (“G4S” or “Defendant”) for violating the California Labor 20 Code by failing to compensate Xiong for missed meal periods and 21 failing to provide accurate wage statements. Compl., ECF No. 1. 22 Defendant moves to stay the case in light of allegedly 23 duplicative pending state court proceedings. Mot., ECF No. 13. 24 For the reasons set forth below, this Court DENIES 25 Defendant’s motion.1 26 27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for July 30, 2019. 1 I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 Mai Katy Xiong, a resident of California, has worked for G4S 3 as an hourly-paid Security Officer at Doctors’ Hospital Manteca 4 since November 2018. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 5. Xiong, who often works in 5 the hospital’s emergency room, alleges she has been regularly 6 denied timely meal periods and has not been paid the required 7 hour of “premium pay” for these missed meal periods. Id. ¶¶ 7-8. 8 Xiong further alleges that G4S has issued wage statements which 9 did not accurately show employees’ number of regular hours 10 worked, overtime hourly rates, gross wages earned, and net wages 11 earned. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. 12 On March 22, 2019, Xiong filed the Complaint against G4S, 13 alleging individual claims for failure to provide meal periods or 14 pay premiums and class claims for failure to furnish accurate 15 itemized wage statements. Compl., at 6-10. Xiong brings the 16 wage statement claims on behalf of a class of “All individuals 17 who are currently employed or were formerly employed by G4S in 18 California and to whom G4S furnished at least one wage statement 19 in relation to a pay period in which the individual was paid 20 overtime and the overtime hourly rate and/or amount of regular 21 hours worked are shown incorrectly, from one year prior to the 22 filing of his Complaint and continuing to the date as determined 23 by the Court.” Compl. ¶ 16. 24 On September 17, 2018, former G4S employee Monet Sterling 25 filed a representative PAGA action against G4S in Los Angeles 26 County Superior Court alleging G4S failed to provide employees 27 mandatory meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu of such 28 breaks, failed to pay employees all final wages due at 1 termination, and failed to provide employees with accurate 2 itemized wage statements. ECF No. 13-1 at 6-12 (Monet Sterling 3 v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc., Case No. BC722270). 4 On February 5, 2019, former G4S employee Brian Pettee filed 5 a class action suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging 6 G4S failed to pay overtime wages, failed to pay minimum wages, 7 failed to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu of 8 such breaks, failed to pay employees all final wages due at 9 termination, failed to provide employees with accurate itemized 10 wage statements, violated PAGA, and violated California’s unfair 11 competition law. ECF No. 13-1 at 17-41 (Brian Pettee v. G4S 12 Secure Solutions (USA), Inc., Case No. 19STCV03482). In that 13 action, Pettee seeks to represent a class of “All individuals who 14 worked for Defendants in state of California as a non-exempt, 15 hourly-paid on-site Security Guard Supervisors at any time during 16 the period from four years prior to the filing of this Complaint 17 until the date of certification.” ECF No. 13-1 at 19-20. 18 G4S moves to stay this federal case pursuant to the decision 19 in Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 20 U.S. 800 (1976), arguing the claims presented in this case are 21 duplicative or substantially similar to those presented in the 22 two California state court actions. Mot., ECF No. 13. Xiong 23 opposes the motion. Opp’n, ECF No. 14. 24 25 II. OPINION 26 Under the Colorado River abstention doctrine, a federal 27 court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction in favor of 28 parallel state proceedings where doing so would serve the 1 interests of “(w)ise judicial administration, giving regard to 2 the conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive 3 disposition of litigation.” Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817 4 (citation omitted). However, “[a]bstention from the exercise of 5 federal jurisdiction is the exception, not the rule.” Id. at 6 813. Indeed, “[g]enerally, as between state and federal courts, 7 the rule is that the pendency of an action in the state court is 8 no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in the Federal 9 court having jurisdiction.” Id. at 817 (internal quotation and 10 citation omitted). 11 The Ninth Circuit has identified “eight factors for 12 assessing the appropriateness of a Colorado River stay or 13 dismissal: (1) which court first assumed jurisdiction over any 14 property at stake; (2) the inconvenience of the federal forum; 15 (3) the desire to avoid piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in 16 which the forums obtained jurisdiction; (5) whether federal law 17 or state law provides the rule of decision on the merits; 18 (6) whether the state court proceedings can adequately protect 19 the rights of the federal litigants; (7) the desire to avoid 20 forum shopping; and (8) whether the state court proceedings will 21 resolve all issues before the federal court.” R.R. St. & Co. 22 Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966, 978–79 (9th Cir. 2011) 23 (footnote omitted). These factors are not to be applied as a 24 “mechanical checklist,” but rather in “a pragmatic, flexible 25 manner with a view to the realities of the case at hand.” Seneca 26 Ins. Co., Inc. v. Strange Land, Inc., 862 F.3d 835, 842 (9th Cir. 27 2017) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. 28 Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 16, 21 (1983)). Nevertheless, “the existence 1 of a substantial doubt as to whether the state proceedings will 2 resolve the federal action precludes the granting of a stay.” 3 Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 12 F.3d 908, 913 4 (9th Cir. 1993). 5 This Court agrees that some factors favor a stay, including 6 that the state court obtained jurisdiction first, state law will 7 provide the rule of decision, and a stay may help avoid piecemeal 8 litigation. But, crucially, a resolution of the Sterling and 9 Pettee actions may not completely resolve the instant case. That 10 the state actions and federal action have overlapping claims and 11 seek similar statutory penalties does not mean the adjudication 12 of the state actions will fully resolve the federal action. For 13 example, the Pettee action involves a putative class of Security 14 Guard Supervisors, but that class is underinclusive as to the 15 this action: Xiong was not a supervisor and thus is not a member 16 of the putative class for whom a judgment will be rendered nor 17 would a decision on the Security Guard Supervisor class cover the 18 entirety of Xiong’s proposed class of former G4S employees. 19 Similarly, a full decision in the Sterling action would not 20 resolve Xiong’s individual claim that G4S regularly denied her, 21 in particular, timely meal periods and did not compensate her for 22 these missed meal periods. Abstention under Colorado River is 23 therefore precluded. Intel Corp., 12 F.3d 913; see Moses H. 24 Cone, 460 U.S. at 28 (underscoring that “the decision to 25 invoke Colorado River necessarily contemplates that the federal 26 court will have nothing further to do in resolving any 27 substantive part of the [federal] case, whether it stays or 28 dismisses.”). 1 Separately, this Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s 2 arguments that this Court should exercise its inherent power to 3 stay this case. Mot. at 13-15 (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 41 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). 5 6 Til. ORDER 7 For the reasons set forth above, this Court DENIES 8 Defendant’s Motion to Stay. ECF No. 13. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: August 13, 2019 11 kA 12 Geren aaa pebrsacr 00k 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28