Phoung v. WinCo Holdings, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SOMRET PHOUNG, an individual, on No. 2:21-cv-02033-MCE-JDP behalf of himself and all others similarly 12 situated, 13 Plaintiff, ORDER 14 v. 15 WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., an Idaho corporation, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Through this action, Plaintiff Somret Phoung (“Plaintiff”) seeks relief from 20 Defendant WinCo Holdings, Inc. (“Defendant”) for wage and hour violations of the 21 California Labor Code and California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 22 §§ 17200 et seq. Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Stay this action 23 pending resolution of the related cases Castanon v. WinCo Holdings, Inc., Case No. 24 2:20-cv-01656-MCE-JDP, and Putman v. WinCo Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv- 25 01760-MCE-JDP. ECF No. 26. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or response 26 thereto. See ECF No. 28. For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.1 27 1 Because oral argument would not have been of material assistance, the Court ordered this 28 matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Local Rule 230(g). 1 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court 2 to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for 3 itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). 4 “The exertion of this power calls for the exercise of a sound discretion.” CMAX, Inc. v. 5 Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). More specifically, the Ninth Circuit has 6 elaborated: 7 Where it is proposed that a pending proceeding be stayed, the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or 8 refusal to grant a stay must be weighed. Among these competing interests are the possible damage which may result 9 from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the 10 orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which 11 could be expected to result from a stay. 12 Id. All of the foregoing weigh in favor of granting a stay. The Phoung action is almost 13 entirely duplicative of the Castanon and Putman cases, and it would waste judicial 14 resources for them to proceed on parallel tracks. Staying this case would thus preserve 15 resources of all parties, while preserving Plaintiff’s interests here, which are being 16 considered with reference to the Castanon and Putman claims. A stay thus results in no 17 harm to Plaintiff here or to the putative class in this case, the claims of which will be 18 prosecuted in Castanon and Putman. Accordingly, given the substantial overlap of 19 these cases, the Court can conceive of no reason not to stay the instant matter. 20 Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 26) is thus GRANTED. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 This matter is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court. Not later than thirty 2 | (30) days following the date judgment is entered in Putman v. WinCo Holdings, Inc., 3 | Case No. 2:21-cv-01760-MCE-JDP, the parties shall file a written Joint Status Report 4 | advising the Court as to the next course of action in this case.? 5 IT |S SO ORDERED. 6 7 | Dated: October 28, 2022 Mata LE rL APS Xo: ° SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 The Court similarly granted Defendant’s Motion to Stay the Putman action pending resolution of 27 the Castanon action for the same reasons stated herein. See ECF No. 31, Case No. 2:21-cv-01760-MCE- JDP. Because Castanon will be adjudicated first, then Putman, the Court finds it appropriate to have the 28 parties file a joint status report in this case following resolution of Putman.