Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00867/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00867-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

– 1 – 18-cv-0867 DMS (WVG)

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMANDO DE LA CRUZ, 

individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-cv-0867 DMS (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO DISMISS, OR IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE, STAY ACTION 

PURSUANT TO FIRST-TO-FILE 

v. RULE

TARGET CORPORATION, and 

DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Pending before the Court is Defendant Target Corporation’s motion to 

dismiss, or in the alternative, stay action pursuant to first-to-file rule. Plaintiff 

Armando De La Cruz filed an opposition, and Defendant filed a reply. For the 

following reasons, the motion is granted.

I.

BACKGROUND

On March 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed a wage and hour class action lawsuit on 

behalf of current and former employees of Defendants in San Diego County Superior 

Court. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of “Defendant’s [non-exempt] 

California employees employed during the time frame commencing four years prior 

to the filing of the original complaint in this matter up to and including the present[.]” 

Case 3:18-cv-00867-DMS-WVG Document 11 Filed 08/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
– 2 – 18-cv-0867 DMS (WVG)

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(Compl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges the following claims for relief: (1) failure to provide 

rest periods, in violation of Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and the applicable 

IWC wage order, (2) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, in 

violation of Cal. Labor Code § 226 and the applicable IWC wage order, (3) waiting 

time penalties for failure to timely pay wages under Cal. Labor Code § 203, and (4)

unlawful and unfair business practices, in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 

17200 et seq. Plaintiff alleges, in part, Defendant maintained a policy and practice 

of compelling employees to remain on company premises at all times thereby 

denying the employees their legally mandated rest breaks. 

On May 4, 2018, Defendant removed the action to this Court pursuant to the 

Class Action Fairness Act. On June 28, 2018, Defendant filed the present motion, 

seeking dismissal, or in the alternative, a stay of the action pursuant to the first-tofile rule. Specifically, Defendant contends Plaintiff is not the first to file a putative 

action alleging Defendant’s non-exempt California employees were denied rest 

breaks based on its on-premises rest break policy. Defendant explains a substantially 

identical class action was filed in the Central District of California one year before 

Plaintiff initiated the present action. See Halley v. Target Corp., Case No. 17-cv00692-JGB-MRW (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2017). 

II.

DISCUSSION

The first-to-file rule “is a generally recognized doctrine of federal comity 

which permits a district court to decline jurisdiction over an action when a complaint 

involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in another district.” 

Pacesetter Sys. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94–95 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations 

omitted); see Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., 946 F.2d 622, 623 (9th Cir. 1991) 

(stating first-to-file rule gives federal district courts discretion “to transfer, stay, or 

dismiss an action when a similar complaint has already been filed in another federal 

court[.]”). “The first-to-file rule was developed to serve[ ] the purpose of promoting 

Case 3:18-cv-00867-DMS-WVG Document 11 Filed 08/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
– 3 – 18-cv-0867 DMS (WVG)

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

efficiency well and should not be disregarded lightly.” Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 625 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Courts analyze three factors to 

determine the applicability of the first-to-file rule: (1) “chronology of the lawsuits,” 

(2) “similarity of the parties,” and (3) “similarity of the issues.” Kohn Law Grp., 

Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg., Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1240 (9th Cir. 2015). The parties 

do not dispute the first-to-file rule applies to this case. Nonetheless, the Court will

address whether the requirements for the first-to-file rule as satisfied. 

The first factor, chronology of the lawsuits, “simply requires that the case in 

question was filed later in time.” Therapy Stores, Inc. v. JGV Apparel Grp., LLC, 

No. 4:16-CV-02588-YGR, 2016 WL 4492583, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2016) 

(citations omitted). This case was filed one year after Halley, and thus, this 

requirement is met. (See Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Ex. 1.)1

The second factor, similarity of the parties, “does not require exact identity of 

the parties.” Kohn Law Grp., Inc., 787 F.3d at 1240 (citations omitted). Rather, the 

first-to-file rule “requires only substantial similarity of parties.” Id. (citations 

omitted). The defendant in each case is the same. Although the named plaintiffs in 

each case are different, the classes they purport to represent are substantially similar. 

In fact, the putative class in the present action is entirely subsumed by the putative 

class in Halley. Specifically, the Halley action seeks to represent a class of “[a]ll 

non-exempt employees who were employed by Defendant in the State of California

at any time from March 6, 2013 through the present[.]” (RJN, Ex. 1.) This 

requirement is therefore satisfied.

Lastly, the third factor requires the Court to look to the similarity of the issues 

 

1 Defendant’s request for judicial notice as to the Complaint in the Halley action is 

granted. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (“under Fed.

R. Evid. 201, a court may take judicial notice of ‘matters of public record.’”) 

(citation omitted). Defendant’s request for judicial notice as to the remaining 

document is denied because the document contained therein is not necessary to the 

resolution of the present motion.

Case 3:18-cv-00867-DMS-WVG Document 11 Filed 08/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
– 4 – 18-cv-0867 DMS (WVG)

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

in the relevant actions. The first-to-file rule does not require identical issues or 

“exact parallelism,” but requires substantial similarity of the issues. See Kohn Law 

Grp., Inc., 787 F.3d at 1240; see Nakash v. Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411, 1416 (9th Cir. 

1989) (“exact parallelism does not exist, but it is not required. It is enough if the two 

proceedings are ‘substantially similar.’”). In order to determine whether the actions 

involve substantially similar issues, courts “look at whether there is ‘substantial 

overlap’ between the two suits.” Kohn Law Grp., Inc., 787 F.3d at 1240. Here, the 

parties agree the issues in the two actions are substantially similar. Like the present 

action, the Halley action brings claims against Defendant for failure to provide rest 

breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and unlawful and 

unfair business practices. The Halley action similarly alleges “Defendants required 

all of its employees to remain on Defendants’ premises during rest breaks[.]” (RJN, 

Ex. 1 at 11.) Moreover, although not pleaded as a separate cause of action, Halley

action also seek recovery of waiting time penalties for failure to timely pay wages. 

Thus, the third requirement is satisfied, and as a result, the first-to-file rule applies 

to this case.2

As noted, “when cases involving the same parties and issues have been filed 

in two different districts, the second district court has discretion to transfer, to stay, 

or to dismiss the second case in the interest of efficiency and judicial economy.” 

Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Shalala, 125 F.3d 765, 769 (9th Cir. 1997). Although 

Plaintiff argues this suit should be stayed rather than dismissed, the Court finds that 

dismissal is more appropriate.3 Plaintiff has not presented any compelling reasons 

to allow this action to proceed. For example, Plaintiff does not argue the first-filed 

action is likely to be dismissed, such that this action should be stayed, rather than 

dismissed. See Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 629 (“where the first-filed action presents a 

 

2 Plaintiff does not argue any of the exceptions to the first-to-file rule, i.e. bad faith, 

anticipatory suit, or forum shopping, are implicated here.

3 Neither party requests a transfer of the present action to the Central District. 

Case 3:18-cv-00867-DMS-WVG Document 11 Filed 08/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
– 5 – 18-cv-0867 DMS (WVG)

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

likelihood of dismissal, the second-filed suit should be stayed, rather than 

dismissed.”). Nor does he argue the Halley action will provide insufficient remedies. 

See Intersearch Worldwide, Ltd. v. Intersearch Grp., Inc., 544 F. Supp. 2d 949, 963 

(N.D. Cal. 2008) (“Dismissal is proper where the court of first filing provides 

adequate remedies.”) (citing Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 627–68)). If the Halley action 

results in a class settlement, the putative class members in this suit can obtain 

adequate relief, and Plaintiff will likewise have the opportunity to participate in the 

settlement or he may opt out to pursue his claims individually. In the event the 

Halley court denies class certification, Plaintiff may litigate his individual claims as 

an intervenor or pursue his individual claims in a separate lawsuit. The putative 

class members may also proceed with their individual claims in an appropriate 

forum. The proposed class and the issues presented are essentially identical to those 

presented in the Halley action, such that there is nothing to suggest this action would 

be certified while the Halley action would not. This case is at its infancy, and 

allowing this case to proceed would both impede judicial efficiency and run a 

significant risk of conflicting judgments. Thus, the Court exercises its discretion 

and grants Defendant’s motion. 

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the case based on 

the first-to-file-rule is granted. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00867-DMS-WVG Document 11 Filed 08/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5