Filed: Mar. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE; AND STAYING PROCEEDINGS Docket No. 67 EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Plaintiffs in this case are 53 individuals who worked as truck drivers for Defendant CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc. ("CSXIT"). Plaintiffs have not filed a class action but rather bring individual claims for violations of the California Labor Code, including failure to reimburse for business expenses. The gist of Plaintiffs' complaint is that CSXIT improperly classif
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE; AND STAYING PROCEEDINGS Docket No. 67 EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Plaintiffs in this case are 53 individuals who worked as truck drivers for Defendant CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc. ("CSXIT"). Plaintiffs have not filed a class action but rather bring individual claims for violations of the California Labor Code, including failure to reimburse for business expenses. The gist of Plaintiffs' complaint is that CSXIT improperly classifi..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE; AND STAYING PROCEEDINGS
Docket No. 67
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
Plaintiffs in this case are 53 individuals who worked as truck drivers for Defendant CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc. ("CSXIT"). Plaintiffs have not filed a class action but rather bring individual claims for violations of the California Labor Code, including failure to reimburse for business expenses. The gist of Plaintiffs' complaint is that CSXIT improperly classified them as independent contractors instead of employees. Currently pending before the Court is CSXIT's motion to transfer venue to the Central District of California. The Court also asked the parties to brief the issue of whether the instant case should be stayed pending resolution of Valadez, a related case before Judge Laporte.
For the reasons stated on the record, CSXIT's motion to transfer venue is DENIED. While CSXIT's motion is not frivolous, the interests of justice weighs in favor of keeping the case in this District. For example, there is already litigation in this District over the same or similar facts, i.e., the Valadez case. Also, CSXIT is engaging in forum shopping, as reflected by the fact that it never sought to transfer the Valadez case. While CSXIT fairly points out that Plaintiffs have also engaged in forum shopping — or more specifically, judge shopping (i.e., by refusing to consent to Judge Laporte) — that does not justify transfer.
As to the issue of a stay, the parties agree in principle that there should be a Landis stay; their disagreement is over the scope of the stay.1 Plaintiffs advocate for a stay of limited length, i.e., to see how Judge Laporte rules on a pending motion for summary judgment and a pending motion to dismiss the PAGA claim in Valadez; CSXIT argues that this case should be stayed until Valadez is resolved in its entirety. The Court finds that the appropriate course is to put in place — for the time being — a limited stay. See Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1111 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that "[a] stay should not be granted unless it appears likely the other proceedings will be concluded within a reasonable time in relation to the urgency of the claims presented to the court"). After Judge Laporte has issued her rulings in Valadez, the Court may reassess whether a longer stay is necessary.
Accordingly, the Court STAYS proceedings in this matter until the further case management conference set for June 7, 2018. At that conference, the parties should be prepared to address, if necessary, whether a longer stay is proper.
This order disposes of Docket No. 67.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
