Heinz v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN HEINZ, No. 2:22-cv-02058-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Mazda Motors of America, Inc.’s 18 (“Defendant”) Motion to Stay or Dismiss, or, in the alternative, Transfer Venue. (ECF No. 9.) 19 Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 11.) Defendant filed a reply. (ECF No. 12.) For the 20 reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS in part Defendant’s motion. 21 Plaintiff filed the instant class action against Defendant for acts and omissions related to 22 an alleged defect in Defendant’s class of vehicles. (ECF No. 1 at 1–3.) It is undisputed that a 23 substantially similar class action matter, Gary Guthrie, et al. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 24 Case No. 22-cv-1055-DOC (“Guthrie”), is currently pending in the Central District of California. 25 (ECF No. 9-1 at 1; ECF No. 11 at 1–5.) Given Guthrie, Defendant moves to stay, dismiss, or 26 transfer the instant matter pursuant to the first-to-file rule. (ECF No. 9-1 at 10.) Specifically, 27 Defendant argues because the plaintiffs in Guthrie allege substantially similar claims against 28 Defendant and seek to “in essence, [represent] the same proposed class,” the instant case is 1 “subsumed by the proposed class in Guthrie.” (Id.) For this reason, Defendant argues the case 2 should be stayed or dismissed, or in the alternative transferred to the Central District of 3 California. (Id.) Plaintiff agrees the first-to-file rule governs resolution of this matter and does 4 not oppose transfer to the Central District of California. (ECF No. 11 at 5.) Plaintiff only 5 opposes dismissal or a stay of the action, arguing neither is warranted pursuant to the first-to-file 6 rule. (Id.) The Court agrees with Plaintiff. 7 The first-to-file rule is triggered when two or more related actions are pending in different 8 courts. Tappin v. TForce Freight, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00322-KJM-DB, 2022 WL 3567126, at *2 9 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2022). The first-to-file rule allows a district court to dismiss a complaint or 10 claim that is duplicative, transfer all or part of the case to the first-filed district, or stay all or part 11 of the case pending a decision in the prior-related action. Kohn Law Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. 12 Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1239-40 (9th Cir. 2015); Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. V. Shalala, 125 F.3d 13 765, 769 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). The rule “serve[s] the purpose of promoting 14 efficiency well and should not be disregarded lightly.” Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 15 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir. 1991). Though the rule is not applied mechanically, courts typically 16 analyze three factors: chronology of the lawsuits; similarity of the parties; and similarity of the 17 issues. Kohn, 787 at 1240. The Court has discretion in applying the rule to best promote 18 “judicial economy, consistency, and comity,” id., or depart from it “for reasons of equity,” 19 Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prod., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 628 (9th Cir. 1991) (“The most basic aspect 20 of the first-to-file rule is that it is discretionary.”). 21 Despite the parties’ agreement that transfer to the Central District of California is 22 appropriate, Defendant advances an argument for dismissal or stay of the action. (ECF No. 9-1 at 23 7–11.) Defendant is correct that this Court, at its discretion, may dismiss, stay, or transfer the 24 instant matter pursuant to the first-to-file rule. See Alltrade, Inc., 946 F.2d at 625. However, 25 Defendant fails to persuade the Court a stay or dismissal, rather than a transfer, would best 26 promote “judicial economy, consistency, and comity” or would be in the equitable interest of the 27 parties. See id. 28 /// 1 Defendant’s argument in favor of a stay or dismissal is premised on three main points: (1) 2 Guthrie was filed first; (2) the Defendant in the instant matter and in Guthrie are the same; and 3 (3) Plaintiff’s claims are subsumed and covered by Guthrie. (ECF No. 9-1 at 4–8.) Plaintiff 4 disagrees and argues dismissal is not warranted for three reasons: “(1) while Guthrie was filed 5 before Heinz, a review of the Guthrie Docket demonstrates that the case remains at the pleading 6 stage, with Mazda not yet filing an Answer; (2) Mazda has attacked the sufficiency of the Guthrie 7 First Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint, and in so doing, seeks the dismissal 8 of the Guthrie action in its entirety; and (3) a dismissal of Heinz would result in the Heinz 9 plaintiff and putative class members’ claims [] potentially being barred due to the statute of 10 limitations if the Guthrie Court grants Mazda’s Motion to Dismiss and dismisses Guthrie in its 11 entirety.” (ECF No 11 at 5.) Plaintiff’s argument is persuasive. 12 Defendant is correct: Guthrie was filed first; the Defendant in Guthrie and the instant case 13 are the same; and Plaintiff raises claims substantially similar to those in Guthrie. Defendant, 14 however, fails to provide justification as to why these facts, based on the current status of Guthrie 15 and the parties’ agreement that proper venue is in the Central District of California counsels in 16 favor of a stay or dismissal, rather than transfer. As of the date of this Order there remains a 17 pending motion to dismiss in Guthrie that could have significant effects on the instant matter. See 18 Guthrie at ECF No. 46. Indeed, Plaintiff provides several examples of how they could be 19 prejudiced should Guthrie be dismissed. (See ECF No. 11 at 5–6.) Further, dismissal in Guthrie 20 would no doubt lead to further, perhaps even duplicative litigation in the instant case regarding 21 the effect of a Guthrie dismissal on this case’s future. For this reason, the Court finds a dismissal 22 of this action could prejudice Plaintiff, would not be in the interest of judicial economy, and 23 would run counter to the dictates of the first-to-file rule. 24 Similarly, a stay would run afoul of the underlying purpose of the first-to-file rule — 25 which is rooted in efficiency and comity. A stay of this action would hold the case in the Eastern 26 District of California despite both parties agreeing that venue is proper in the Central District of 27 California. Defendant stated it well, “[t]ransfer of this case to the Central District of California 28 preserves judicial resources, promotes judicial economy, and avoids duplicative litigation.” (ECF 1 | □□ □□□ at 14.) Plaintiff agrees stating, “the Court should transfer this action to the Central 2 | District of California.” (ECF No. 11 at 7.) Accepting both Defendant’s and Plaintiff's arguments 3 | that venue is proper in the Central District of California, it would be improper to stay proceedings 4 | in this case, in a district neither party believes is the proper venue. Accordingly, a stay in not 5 | warranted. 6 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds transfer of this case to the Central District of 7 | California is most appropriate. The parties agree the first-to-file rule applies to the instant case 8 | and the Court finds a stay and dismissal improper. As such, this case should be transferred to the 9 | district of proper venue — the Central District of California. 10 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS in part Defendant’s Motion to Stay 11 | or Dismiss, or, in the alternative, Transfer Venue and transfers this case to the Central District of 12 | California. (ECF No. 9.) This Order resolves ECF Nos. 9 and 10 and closes the case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 |Dated: June 29, 2023 nN /) 15 “ \ / of W 16 — ZA a Troy L. Nunley> } 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28