Mazzei v. GEO Secure Services, LLC ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CHRIS MAZZEI, Case No. 1:22-cv-01347-JLT-CDB 9 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO FILE A JOINT STATUS REPORT 10 v. TEN-DAY DEADLINE 11 GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC, 12 Defendant. 13 14 15 Plaintiff Chris Mazzei (“Mazzei”) originally filed this putative class action in the Superior 16 Court of California, County of Kern on September 8, 2022. (Doc. 1-2 p. 5).1 He asserts various 17 causes of action and seeks to represent all current and former California employees of Defendant 18 GEO Secure Services, LLC (“GEO”) employed within four years prior to the filing of the 19 complaint. (Doc. 20 p. 4). The complaint alleges that GEO committed violations of the 20 California Labor Code by failing to provide meal and rest periods; pay wages; comply with 21 employee wage statement requirements; timely pay wages at termination; timely pay employees; 22 reimburse business expenses; pay for all hours worked; provide a place of employment that is 23 safe and healthful; and unfair competition. (Doc. 1-2 pp. 6-25). Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7,512,558, 24 510, 1194, 1194.2, 226(a)(e), 1174(d), 204(a)(b), 2802, 210, 218, 222, 6400, 6401, 6403, 6404, 25 6407; 8 C.C.R. § 3202; Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code § 17200. 26 The action was removed to this Court on October 20, 2022. (Doc. 1). Thereafter, on May 27 5, 2023, GEO filed the pending motion to stay. (Doc. 16). Mazzei filed an opposition on May 1 19, 2023 (Doc. 20) and GEO filed a reply on May 30, 2023. (Doc. 21). The motion to stay was 2 referred to the undersigned on October 31, 2023. (Doc. 25). 3 I. The Motion to Stay 4 GEO moves to stay the present suit until the resolution of several earlier-filed actions as it 5 argues that those actions involve substantially the same parties and issues as the case at bar. The 6 alleged earlier-filed actions are as follows: Tezsanique Hendrickson v. GEO Secure Services, 7 LLC, California Superior Court for San Bernadino County, Case No. CIVSB2118376 (filed on 8 June 28, 2021) (“Hendrickson”); Samdeeshia Bell v. GEO Secure Services, LLC, Case No. 5:21- 9 cv-1927 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2021) (“Bell”); Priscilla Lopez v. GEO Secure Services, LLC, 10 California Superior Court for Imperial County, Case No. ECU002060 (filed on September 9, 11 2021) (“Lopez”); Nickolas Ortiz v. The GEO Group Inc., d/b/a GEO California, Inc. et al., 12 California Superior Court for Kern County, Case No. BCV 21-102469, 22-100659 (filed October 13 20, 2021, March 22, 2022) (“Ortiz”); Daniel Perez v. The GEO Group, Inc., d/b/a GEO Group 14 California, Inc., et al., California Superior Court for San Diego County, Case No. 37-2022- 15 00000670-CU-OE-CTL (filed on January 6, 2022) (“Perez”); Julie Castillo v. GEO Secure 16 Services, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00445-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2023) (“Castillo”). 17 Consistent with Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court takes judicial notice 18 of the above case files and their respective dockets. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2); Harris v. County of 19 Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2012). The Court notes that in the Lopez action, the 20 Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of settlement. Lopez, Case No. ECU002060 21 (Doc. 78). The motion for preliminary approval of settlement identifies Priscilla Lopez, Julie 22 Castillo, Samdeeshia Bell, Tezsanique Hendrickson and Nickolas Ortiz as named plaintiffs in 23 support of a settlement. Id. at 1. In the Castillo action, the parties filed a notice of settlement, 24 which references a “global mediation” to attempt to resolve several similar cases. Castillo, Case 25 No. 3:22-cv-00445-MMA-MMD at (Docs. 49, 55). The Court also takes judicial notice of an 26 order granting final approval of a class and collective action settlement of the Perez action, which 27 was granted on October 6, 2023. Thus, it appears that the trajectory of the earlier-filed actions 1 | F.Supp.3d 864, 873-74 (E.D. Cal. 2022) (finding a stay under Landis v. North American Co., 299 2 | U.S. 248 254 (1936) to be inappropriate as the motion practice in the underlying cases was guided 3 | towards settlement and was not duplicative to anything in the case at bar). 4 In light of the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within ten (10) days of entry of 5 | this Order, the parties shall file a joint report setting forth whether (1) the parties in the earlier- 6 | filed actions have reached/anticipate reaching a resolution of their cases without addressing the 7 | allegedly parallel issues in this case, and (2) whether Mazzei is party to any settlement agreement 8 | in any of the above-referenced actions or is in the process of reaching a settlement agreement. 9 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ January 8, 2024 | hr 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28