Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00247/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00247-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

LEGAL_US_W # 58322395.1

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO TRANSFER 

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-07-3014-SI 

JOSE R. MATA (Cal. State Bar No. 83724) 

BAILEY PINNEY, PC 

1498 SE Tech Center Place, Suite 290 

Vancouver, Washington 98683 

Telephone: (360) 567-2551 

Facsimile: (360) 567-3331 

JMata@wagelawyer.com

(Additional counsel for plaintiff on next page) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Okechukwu Mbama 

JEFFREY D. WOHL (Cal. State Bar No. 96838) 

RISHI N. SHARMA (Cal. State Bar No. 239034) 

GREGGORY W. DALTON (Cal. State Bar No. 252000) 

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 

55 Second Street, 24th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94105-3441 

Telephone: (415) 856-7000 

Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 

jeffwohl@paulhastings.com

rishisharma@paulhastings.com

greggorydalton@paulhastings.com

Attorneys for Defendant Target Corporation 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OKECHUKWU MBAMA, individually 

and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota 

Corporation, and Does 1-25, inclusive, 

Defendants.

No. C-07-3014-SI

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO TRANSFER 

Case 3:07-cv-03014-SI Document 40 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 1 of 7

The Court approves Judge Spero's

Suggestion.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Susan Illston

Case 3:06-cv-00247-SI Document 291 Filed 03/12/08 Page 1 of 8
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

LEGAL_US_W # 58322395.1

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO TRANSFER 

 U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-07-3014-SI 

Additional Counsel for Plaintiff Okechukwu Mbama: 

SUSAN SEEMILLER (Cal. State Bar No. 150546) 

BAILEY PINNEY, PC 

840 County Square Drive 

Ventura, California 93003 

Telephone: (805) 339-9090 

Facsimile: (805) 339-0090 

sseemiller@wagelawyer.com

BONNIE MAC FARLANE (Cal. State Bar No. 161526) 

BAILEY PINNEY, PC 

720 Howe Avenue, Suite 113 

Sacramento, California 95825 

Telephone: (800) 230-5528 

Facsimile: (800) 230-5866 

bmacfarlane@wagelawyer.com

Case 3:07-cv-03014-SI Document 40 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 2 of 7 Case 3:06-cv-00247-SI Document 291 Filed 03/12/08 Page 2 of 8
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

LEGAL_US_W # 58322395.1

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO TRANSFER 

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-07-3014-SI 

STIPULATION TO TRANSFER

Plaintiff Okechukwu Mbama and defendant Target Corporation (“Target”), appearing through 

their respective counsel of record, stipulate as follows: 

1. Plaintiff Mbama commenced this action on June 8, 2007, and alleged, inter alia, that 

Target failed to provide meal periods and rest breaks; failed to provide accurate, itemized wage 

statements; failed to pay wages timely; and engaged in unlawful business practices. Based on his 

allegations, plaintiff Mbama seeks to represent himself and a class consisting of consisting Target’s 

current and former California employees for the relevant liability period(s); and to recover for himself 

and his proposed class wages due, statutory damages, punitive damages, and other penalties. 

2. On April 19, 2007, however, prior to the filing of plaintiff Mbama’s complaint, another 

plaintiff—Renee Cesar Vilches Mora—commenced his own action in the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of California entitled Renee Cesar Vilches Mora v. Target Corp., U.S.D.C., 

S.D. Cal., No. 07-CV-0719 BEN (“Mora”), which is pending before United States District Judge Roger 

T. Benitez. Plaintiff Mora’s complaint alleges causes of action identical to plaintiff Mbama’s complaint 

and seeks certification of a class consisting of all current and former Target employees in California for 

the relevant liability period. 

3. On June 14, 2007, Target moved to dismiss the Mora complaint under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) based on the then-recently decided opinion of the United States Supreme Court 

in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. ---, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007). 

4. In the initial case management statement for this action, filed on September 18, 2007, the 

parties informed the Court of the related suit in Mora and reported that Target’s motion to dismiss the 

complaint in Mora was still pending before Judge Benitez in the Southern District. 

5. At the September 28, 2007, initial case management conference in this action, the Court 

orally stated its intention to transfer this case to the Southern District of California for consolidation with 

Mora, the earlier-filed action, should Mora survive Target’s motion to dismiss. Following the 

conference, the Court stayed proceedings and set a further case management conference for November 

16, 2007, to allow Judge Benitez time to rule on Target’s motion to dismiss in Mora.

///

Case 3:07-cv-03014-SI Document 40 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 3 of 7 Case 3:06-cv-00247-SI Document 291 Filed 03/12/08 Page 3 of 8
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

LEGAL_US_W # 58322395.1

2 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO TRANSFER 

 U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-07-3014-SI 

6. On November 9, 2007, the parties reported in their further case management statement in 

this action that Judge Benitez had denied Target’s motion to dismiss the complaint in Mora, but had 

simultaneously issued an order to show cause why Mora should not be dismissed for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. Based on its confidence that Judge Benitez would find jurisdiction in Mora proper 

under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), Target asked that the 

Court continue the case management conference and the stay of this action until January 2008 in the 

anticipation that Judge Benitez would have discharged the order to show cause by that time. 

7. At the November 16, 2007, further case management conference, the Court reiterated its 

intention to transfer this action to the Southern District if Mora were allowed to proceed; continued the 

stay of this action; and set a further case management conference for January 18, 2008. 

8. On January 15, 2008, the parties by stipulation requested the Court vacate the January 18 

conference because Judge Benitez had yet to discharge his order to show cause, and further requested 

that the Court continue the stay and the case management conference to February 29, 2008. On January 

17, 2008, the Court adopted the parties’ stipulation. 

9. On February 22, 2008, the parties again requested by stipulation that the Court vacate the 

February 29 case management conference to allow Judge Benitez to rule on his order to show cause, and 

further requested that the Court continue the stay and case management conference to April 25, 2008. 

On February 26, 2008, the Court adopted the parties’ stipulation. 

10. On February 29, 2008, Judge Benitez discharged his order to show cause and found that 

plaintiff Mora’s complaint met the jurisdictional prerequisites of CAFA. A true copy of Judge Benitez’s 

February 29 order is attached to this stipulation, and the parties ask that this Court take judicial notice of 

the order. 

11. The parties now request that the Court effect transfer of this action to the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of California for consolidation with Mora for two reasons: 

a. First, this Court broad authority to order transfer in the interest of justice or for the 

convenience of the parties and witnesses. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 

F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). Transfer is appropriate here because it will serve the interest of justice. 

Courts have consistently held that where two suits concern similar allegations or claims, transfer is 

Case 3:07-cv-03014-SI Document 40 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 4 of 7 Case 3:06-cv-00247-SI Document 291 Filed 03/12/08 Page 4 of 8
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

LEGAL_US_W # 58322395.1

3 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO TRANSFER 

 U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-07-3014-SI 

appropriate to save judicial time and resources, reduce duplicative discovery, and ease the burdens of 

litigation. Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964); In re A.J. Indus., Inc., 503 F.2d 384, 389 

(9th Cir. 1974). In fact, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has often cited the pendency of 

similar putative class actions for transfer under the similar statutory language of 28 U.S.C. section 1407. 

See, e.g., In re Am. Airlines, Inc., Privacy Litig., 342 F. Supp. 2d 1355, 1356 (J.P.M.L. 2004); In re First 

Nat’l Bank, Heavener, Okla. (First Mortgage Revenue Bonds) Sec. Litig., 451 F. Supp. 995, 997 

(J.P.M.L. 1978); In re Equity Funding Corp. of Am. Sec. Litig., 375 F. Supp. 1378, 1385-86 (J.P.M.L. 

1973). The same logic applies here: transfer to the Southern District of California for consolidation with 

Mora will serve the interest of justice by reducing the unnecessary waste of judicial and litigant time and 

resources by proceeding on parallel tracks in two different courts. 

b. Second, the Court has inherent power to effect transfer under the first-to-file rule. 

See Smith v. M’Iver, 22 U.S. 532, 535 (1824) (recognizing that “the Court which first has possession of 

the subject must decide it.”). This doctrine of the federal common law permits a court to dismiss, stay, 

or transfer a later-filed action that substantially overlaps with earlier-filed litigation. Alltrade, Inc. v. 

Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 623, 625 (9th Cir. 1991). The rule’s purpose is to avoid duplicative 

litigation. See Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). Just as 

transfer would avoid duplicative litigation under section 1404(a), so too does it warrant transfer under 

the first-to-file rule. 

12. The parties also request that the stay in this action continue in force until the transfer to 

the Southern District of California is effected, at which time the prosecution of this action will fall 

within the jurisdiction of the Southern District of California. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-03014-SI Document 40 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 5 of 7 Case 3:06-cv-00247-SI Document 291 Filed 03/12/08 Page 5 of 8
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

LEGAL_US_W # 58322395.1

4 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO TRANSFER 

 U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-07-3014-SI 

Dated: March 6, 2008. JOSE R. MATA 

SUSAN SEEMILLER 

BONNIE MAC FARLANE 

BAILEY PINNEY, PC 

By:

Jose R. Mata 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Okechukwu Mbama

Dated: March 6, 2008. JEFFREY D. WOHL 

RISHI N. SHARMA 

GREGGORY W. DALTON 

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 

By:

Rishi N. Sharma 

Attorneys for Defendant Target Corporation 

Case 3:07-cv-03014-SI Document 40 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 6 of 7

/s/ Jose R. Mata

/s/ Rishi N. Sharma

Case 3:06-cv-00247-SI Document 291 Filed 03/12/08 Page 6 of 8
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

LEGAL_US_W # 58322395.1

5 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO TRANSFER 

 U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-07-3014-SI 

TRANSFER ORDER

On the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1404(a) and the common law first-tofile rule, that the above-titled action be transferred from this Court to the United States District Court for 

the Southern District of California in light of the substantial overlap between plaintiff Okechukwu 

Mbama’s claims in this action and the claims in the earlier-filed action pending before United States 

District Judge Roger T. Benitez in the Southern District of California titled Renee Cesar Vilches Mora v. 

Target Corporation, U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal. No. 07-CV-0719-BEN (filed April 19, 2007). 

IT IS HEREBY ALSO ORDERED that the stay of this action remain in force until transfer to the 

Southern District of California is effected. 

Dated: March ___, 2008. __________________________________________ Susan Illston 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-03014-SI Document 40 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 7 of 7 Case 3:06-cv-00247-SI Document 291 Filed 03/12/08 Page 7 of 8
Case 3:07-cv-03014-SI Document 40-2 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 1 of 1 Case 3:06-cv-00247-SI Document 291 Filed 03/12/08 Page 8 of 8