ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS

Re: ECF No. 30, 31

LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.

INTRODUCTION

This action is a labor dispute brought as a putative class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Plaintiff Elaine Gomez-Ortega, who brings claims on behalf of herself and other putative class members, is an exotic dancer who is suing the companies that managed the nightclubs where she worked.

The defendants — Deja Vu — San Francisco, LLC ("DV San Francisco"), Deja Vu Services, Inc. ("DV Services"), Deja Vu Showgirls of San Francisco, LLC ("DV Showgirls San Francisco"), and Deja Vu Showgirls-Sacramento LLC ("DV Showgirls Sacramento")1 — have moved to stay the proceedings or dismiss Ms. Gomez-Ortega's complaint on the grounds that her claims are covered by three earlier-filed collective and class actions — Roe v. SFBSC Entertainment, LLC, No. 3:14-cv-03616-LB (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 8, 2014), Doe v. Deja Vu Services, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-10877-SJM-PTM (E.D Mich. filed Mar. 10, 2016), and Predmore v. Stockton Enterprises, Inc., 2:17-cv-01091-MCE-GGH (E.D. Cal. filed May 24, 2017) — brought by exotic dancers against various combinations of the same defendants against whom Ms. Gomez-Ortega brings her claims.2 Settlements have been entered in both the Roe action and the Doe action (both settlements are on appeal). Roe v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, No. 14-cv-03616-LB, 2017 WL 4073809 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2017), appeal filed, No. 17-17079 (9th Cir. filed Oct. 16, 2017); Doe v. Deja Vu Services, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-10877, 2017 WL 2629101 (E.D. Mich. June 19, 2017), appeal filed, No. 17-1827 (6th Cir. filed July 19, 2017). Ms. Gomez-Ortega is a member of the settlement class in both the Roe and Doe actions, and much of what she claims against the defendants here would be released by the Roe and Doe settlements should they become final.

The court can decide the defendants' motion without a hearing. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). After considering the relevant factors, the court determines that a stay of the proceedings is warranted. The court stays this action pending resolution of the appeals in the Roe and Doe actions.

STATEMENT

1. The Roe Action

The Roe action is a putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and a putative class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Roe, 2017 WL 4073809, at *1. The plaintiffs are or were exotic dancers suing the companies that managed the nightclubs where they worked, which included (for the purposes of settlement) DV San Francisco and DV Showgirls San Francisco. Id. On September 14, 2017, the court approved a collective- and class-action settlement agreement. Id. As relevant here, the settlement provided that class members who did not submit an FLSA claim form and did not exclude themselves from the settlement would release all claims that are or could have been asserted against the defendants in that action from August 8, 2010 through April 14, 2017, except for claims under the FLSA. Id. at *5. The defendants assert, and Ms. Gomez-Ortega does not deny, that Ms. Gomez-Ortega was a member of the Roe settlement class and did not exclude herself from the settlement.3

The Roe settlement is currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit.

2. The Doe Action

The Doe action is a putative collective action under the FLSA and a putative class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Doe, 2017 WL 2629101, at *1. The plaintiffs are or were exotic dancers suing the companies that managed the nightclubs where they worked, which included DV Services and (for the purposes of settlement) DV Showgirls Sacramento.4 On June 19, 2017, the Doe court approved a collective- and class-action settlement agreement. Doe, 2017 WL 2629101, at *1. As relevant here, the settlement provided that class members who opted in to the settlement would release all FLSA claims and all state-wage-and-hour claims against the defendants from the class member's first interaction with the defendants in that action through the "Effective Date," defined as seven days after the judgment in that case becomes final.5 The defendants assert, and Ms. Gomez-Ortega does not deny, that Ms. Gomez-Ortega affirmatively opted into the Doe settlement.6 The Doe court also entered a preliminary injunction staying all related cases and claims against any Deja Vu-affiliated nightclub. Doe v. Deja Vu Services, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-10877, 2017 WL 530434, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 9, 2017), amended, slip op. (E.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2017), ECF No. 36.

The Doe settlement is currently on appeal before the Sixth Circuit.

3. The Predmore Action

The Predmore action is a putative collective action under the FLSA and a putative class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.7 The plaintiffs are or were exotic dancers suing the companies that managed the nightclubs where they worked, which included DV Showgirls Sacramento.8 The Predmore court stayed all proceedings in that case until judgment in the Doe case is final. Predmore v. Stockton Enters., No. 2:17-cv-01091-MCE-GGH, slip op. (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2018), ECF No. 23.

4. This Action

Plaintiff Elaine Gomez-Ortega is an exotic dancer who worked for the defendants as a dancer/ performer during two separate periods of time: August 2016 through October 2016, and then February 2017 through July 5, 2017.9 Ms. Gomez brings state-labor-law claims and an FLSA claim against the defendants.

Ms. Gomez-Ortega brought her earlier First Amended Complaint on behalf of various putative Rule 23 classes comprised of persons employed by the defendants at any point between December 6, 2013, and the date on which final judgment in this case is entered.10 The defendants moved to dismiss and/or stay the case, arguing that (among other things) that Ms. Gomez-Ortega's claims were substantially covered and released by the Roe and Doe actions.11 Ms. Gomez-Ortega filed a Second Amended Complaint, which redefined her putative Rule 23 classes to be comprised of persons employed by the defendants at any point between April 14, 2017 and the date on which final judgment in this case is entered.12 Notably, while Ms. Gomez-Ortega limits who can be a member of her putative classes, Ms. Gomez-Ortega's actual claims against the defendants are not limited to the time after April 14, 2017, but purport to go back to the extent of the statute of limitations.13

ANALYSIS

1. Governing Law

Under the first-to-file rule, "a district court [may] stay proceedings if a similar case with substantially similar issues and parties was previously filed in another district court." Kohn Law Grp. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir. 2015); Wallerstein v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc., 967 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1292 (N.D. Cal. 2013). "The rule is primarily meant to alleviate the burden placed on the federal judiciary by duplicative litigation and to prevent the possibility of conflicting judgments." Wallerstein, 967 F. Supp. 2d at 1292 (citing Church of Scientology of Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of Army, 611 F.2d 738, 750 (9th Cir. 1979)). Courts analyze three factors in determining whether to apply the first-to-file rule: "chronology of the lawsuits, similarity of the parties, and similarity of the issues." Kohn, 787 F.3d at 1240. "Regarding similarity of the parties, courts have held that the first-to-file rule does not require exact identity of the parties." Id. (citing cases). "Courts have held that proposed classes in class action lawsuits are substantially similar where both classes seek to represent at least some of the same individuals." Wallerstein, 967 F. Supp. 2d at 1296. "The first-to-file rule is intended to serve the purpose of promoting efficiency well and should not be disregarded lightly." Kohn, 787 F.3d at 1239 (citations and internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

Additionally, a district court has the inherent power to stay proceedings in order to control its docket and in the interest of judicial efficiency. See, e.g., Strumlauf v. Starbucks Corp., No. 16-cv-01306-TEH, 2016 WL 3645194, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2016) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Courts analyze three factors in determining whether to grant a discretionary stay: "(1) potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party absent a stay; and (3) judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation." Id. (citing Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F.Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997)).

2. Application

The first-to-file factors are met here. First, the Roe action, the Doe action, and the Predmore action were all filed before this action was. Second, the parties are substantially similar. All of the defendants here are defendants in at least one of the Roe, Doe, or Predmore actions, and Ms. Gomez-Ortega is seeking to represent a class that includes at least some of the same individuals as in the Roe and Doe classes (as evidenced by the fact that she herself is a member of both the Roe and Doe settlement classes).14 Third, the issues are substantially similar. All of these cases involve substantially similar wage-and-hour claims. Ms. Gomez-Ortega's claims that she limited her proposed classes and therefore her claims do not overlap with the claims in the Roe and Doe cases is unavailing. Ms. Gomez-Ortega limited her proposed classes to persons who were employed by the defendants after April 14, 2017 (i.e., she excludes persons who were only employed prior to April 14, 2017 but not afterwards), but for those individuals, she brings claims arising both before and after April 14, 2017.15 Those claims overlap with the Roe and Doe actions. Additionally, if either the Roe or Doe case is reversed on appeal and continues litigating, Ms. Gomez-Ortega's claims would continue to overlap with those actions on an ongoing basis.

Even if the first-to-file factors were not met, a discretionary stay would be warranted. First, Ms. Gomez-Ortega has not identified any prejudice that she would suffer from a stay. Second, the defendants would suffer at least some hardship and inequity in the absence of a stay if they are forced to expend resources litigating claims against Ms. Gomez-Ortega that may be entirely released by the Roe and Doe settlements. Cf. Tovar v. Hospital Housekeeping Sys., Inc., No. CV 09-03487 MMM (RNBx), 2009 WL 10672526, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2009) ("Where the opponent does not adduce evidence that it will be harmed by a stay, . . . courts have considered the moving party's burden in litigating the case to be a legitimate form of harm."). Third, staying this case would preserve judicial resources and avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings between this case and the Roe, Doe, and Predmore litigations. Cf. id. at *6 ("It would waste judicial resources and be burdensome upon the parties if the district court in a case were mandated to determine the merits of a case at the same time as the separate proceeding is going through a substantially parallel process.") (internal brackets and ellipses omitted) (quoting Sequoia Forestkeeper & Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. CV F 07-1690 LJO DLB, 2008 WL 2131557, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 21, 2008)); accord Predmore, slip op. (staying case until Doe judgment is final).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court says this action until resolution of the appeals in the Roe and Doe actions. Within sixty days of the date of this order, and every sixty days thereafter, the parties are directed to file a joint status report advising the court of the status of the Doe action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.