Carralez v. Satellite Healthcare, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Maria Carralez, No. 2:22-cv-01613-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 Vv. 14 Satellite Healthcare, Inc., 1S Defendant. 16 17 Defendant Satellite Healthcare moves to dismiss or stay plaintiff Maria Carralez’s wage- 18 | and-hour class and collective action based on a prior-filed, state-court action titled Soliman v. 19 | Satellite Healthcare, Inc., No. 21-CV-387218 (Soliman). See Mot., ECF No. 6. The court 20 | submits defendant’s motion on the briefs, without hearing. Because Satellite has not shown 21 | Carralez’s action is substantially similar to So/iman, the court denies the motion.! 22 | I. BACKGROUND 23 A. Soliman Action in State Court 24 In September 2021, Tiffany Soliman filed a class and representative action against 25 | Satellite in Santa Clara County Superior Court, alleging Satellite did not provide minimum and ' The court grants Satellite’s request for judicial notice of documents filed in the Soliman action. RJN, ECF No. 6-2; see also Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lara, 530 F. Supp. 3d 914, 923 (E.D. Cal. 2021) (“Courts routinely take judicial notice of documents on file in federal or state courts... .”), aff'd on other grounds, 37 F Ath 579 (9th Cir. 2022). 1 overtime wages, meal and rest periods, expense reimbursements and sick leave pay, among 2 others. See RJN Ex. A (Soliman Compl.). Soliman seeks to represent members of a class 3 consisting of Satellite’s hourly, non-exempt employees in California. RJN Ex. C (Soliman SAC) 4 ¶ 23. 5 In June 2022, the state court dismissed Soliman’s sick leave claims under California 6 Labor Code sections 218.5 and 246 because those sections do not provide a private right of action 7 for employees. RJN Ex. B (Soliman Order) at 5–6. Soliman’s operative state complaint now 8 omits any references to unpaid sick leave. See generally Soliman SAC. Although Soliman was 9 filed a year ago, it appears no discovery has occurred, and no class has been certified. See RJN 10 Ex. D (Soliman Docket Entry). 11 B. Carralez’s Action in This Court 12 In September 2022, Carralez filed a class action under Rule 23 and collective action under 13 the Fair Labor Standards Act in this court, alleging Satellite did not provide minimum and 14 overtime wages, meal and rest breaks and sick leave pay, among others. See Compl., ECF No. 1. 15 Unlike Soliman, Carralez brings her sick leave claim, in part, under California Labor Code 16 section 233, id. ¶¶ 77–87, which prohibits employers from discouraging employees from using 17 their accrued sick leave, Cal. Lab. Code § 233(c). For most of her class claims, Carralez seeks to 18 represent Satellite’s California employees. Compl. ¶ 39. For her overtime wage class claim and 19 collective claim, she seeks to represent both California and out-of-state employees. Id. ¶¶ 38–39. 20 Satellite now moves to dismiss or stay Carralez’s complaint based on the prior-filed 21 Soliman action. Mot. Carralez opposes the motion. Opp’n, ECF No. 8. Satellite has replied. 22 Reply, ECF No. 9. The court submits the matter without a hearing and resolves it here. 23 II. LEGAL STANDARD 24 “Generally, as between state and federal courts, the rule is that ‘the pendency of an action 25 in the state court is no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in the Federal court having 26 jurisdiction . . . .’” Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 27 917 (1976) (citation omitted). But a dismissal or stay of a federal action may be appropriate in 28 exceptional circumstances. Id. at 816–17. 1 To determine whether dismissal or stay is proper based on a parallel state proceeding, 2 courts consider the following eight factors: 3 (1) which court first assumed jurisdiction over any property at stake; 4 (2) the inconvenience of the federal forum; (3) the desire to avoid 5 piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in which the forums obtained 6 jurisdiction; (5) whether federal law or state law provides the rule of 7 decision on the merits; (6) whether the state court proceedings can 8 adequately protect the rights of the federal litigants; (7) the desire to 9 avoid forum shopping; and (8) whether the state court proceedings 10 will resolve all issues before the federal court. 11 R. R. St. & Co. Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966, 978–79 (9th Cir. 2011) (articulating factors 12 relevant in a Colorado River analysis). 13 The eighth factor, whether the state case will resolve all issues in the federal case, is often 14 dispositive. United States v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 988 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2021). 15 Unless “an additional claim is highly related to the overlapping claims,” “[t]here is a strong 16 presumption that the presence of an additional claim in the federal suit means that Colorado River 17 is inapplicable.” Id. at 1203, 1207 n.5. “If there is any substantial doubt as to whether ‘the 18 parallel state-court litigation will be an adequate vehicle for the complete and prompt resolution 19 of the issues between the parties . . . it would be a serious abuse of discretion to grant the stay or 20 dismissal at all.’” Id. at 1203 (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 21 460 U.S. 1, 28 (1983)). [T]he decision to invoke Colorado River necessarily contemplates that 22 the federal court will have nothing further to do in resolving any substantive part of the case, 23 whether it stays or dismisses.” Moses, 460 U.S. at 28. 24 III. ANALYSIS 25 Here, a dismissal or stay is unwarranted because Soliman would not resolve all issues in 26 this case. 27 First, Satellite concedes Soliman would not resolve Carralez’s sick leave claim under 28 section 233. See Mot. at 7 (“[P]rovided that the proper course of action would be to dismiss [the 29 sick leave] claim, Soliman and the instant action are substantially similar.”). Although Satellite 30 argues Carralez has not plausibly pled her sick leave claim, it has not moved to dismiss for failure 1 to state a claim. See Reply at 4–7 (“[S]hould the Court find Plaintiff’s argument persuasive, 2 Defendant respectfully requests that, before ruling on this motion, the Court permit supplemental 3 briefing on the viability of Plaintiff’s alleged failure to pay sick leave claim.”). Nor has Satellite 4 shown Carralez cannot overcome any pleading deficiencies by amending the complaint, as 5 section 233 provides a private right of action for employees like Carralez. See Cal. Lab. Code 6 § 233(e); cf. Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989). In short, 7 this is not a case where the court “will have nothing further to do in resolving any substantive part 8 of the case, whether it stays or dismisses.” Moses, 460 U.S. at 28. 9 Second, the Soliman action, limited to Satellite’s California employees, would not resolve 10 Carralez’s nationwide class and collective claims, which concern Satellite’s out-of-state 11 employees. Compare Soliman SAC ¶ 23 with Compl. ¶¶ 38–39. While Satellite relies on cases in 12 which courts granted a partial stay to the extent federal and state cases shared similar class 13 allegations,2 Mot. at 16–19, even those cases make clear the court should not stay a nationwide 14 class or collective claim if such a claim is not alleged in the state action, see, e.g., Gintz v. Jack In 15 the Box, Inc., No. 06-02857, 2006 WL 3422222, at *6–7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2006) (refusing to 16 stay plaintiff’s nationwide class claim because state class action for California employees “will 17 not resolve the federal claims of those members of the nation-wide class.”). Those cases also 18 make clear this court should consider Carralez’s nationwide class and collective allegations for 19 purposes of a Colorado River analysis, even though she has not moved to certify her class or 20 collective. See, e.g., id. at *1, 7 (refusing to stay plaintiff’s nationwide class claim based on a 21 state action for California employees, even though no class had been certified in plaintiff’s case); 22 contra Reply at 7. At this juncture, those allegations raise “substantial doubt” as to whether the 23 Soliman action “will be an adequate vehicle for the complete and prompt resolution of the issues 24 between the parties,” and “it would be a serious abuse of discretion to grant the stay or dismissal 25 at all.” State Water, 988 F.3d at 1203. 2 Satellite here has not requested a partial stay. See Mot. Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit recently held “a partial Colorado River stay generally is not permissible” because it “does not further the basic purpose of the Colorado River doctrine . . . [which] exists for the conservation of judicial resources.” State Water, 988 F.3d at 1025–26. 1 For the reasons above, the court denies Satellite’s motion to dismiss or stay. Because 2 Soliman would not resolve all issues currently raised in this case, the court need not consider 3 other factors of the Colorado River doctrine. Id. 4 IV. CONCLUSION 5 The court denies defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay (ECF No. 6). Accordingly, the 6 motion hearing and status (pretrial scheduling) conference set for December 9, 2022 are vacated. 7 The status conference is reset for December 15, 2022 at 2:30 p.m. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 DATED: November 29, 2022.