Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01269/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01269-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

-1- 19cv1269-MMA (MDD)

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 

JENNIFER LACEY-SALAS, an 

individual on behalf of herself and on 

behalf of all persons similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ALDI INC., a corporation, and AI 

CALIFORNIA LLC, a limited liability 

company, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 19cv1269-MMA (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING JOINT 

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 

[Doc. No. 11]

On June 7, 2019, Plaintiff Jennifer Lacey-Salas (“Plaintiff”) filed this putative 

class action against Defendants ALDI Inc. and AI California LLC (“Defendants”) 

alleging various wage and hour claims in the Superior Court of California, County of San 

Diego. See Doc. No. 1-2. On July 10, 2019, Defendants removed the action to this Court 

pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Doc. No. 1. 

On July 30, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion to transfer this case to the Central 

District of California pursuant to the first-to-file rule. See Doc. No. 11. For the reasons 

set forth below, the Court GRANTS the joint motion. 

Under the first-to-file rule, district courts have discretion to dismiss, stay, or 

transfer a case to another district. Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 

Case 3:19-cv-01269-MMA-MDD Document 12 Filed 08/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
 -2- 19cv1269-MMA (MDD)

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

94-95. (9th Cir. 1982). The rule “recognize[s] [the] 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.” Id. The rule, 

however, is “not a rigid or inflexible rule to be mechanically applied but rather to be 

applied with a view to the dictates of sound judicial administration.” Id. at 95. In 

deciding whether to apply the first-to-file rule, courts analyze three factors: “the 

chronology of the lawsuits, similarity of the parties, and similarity of issues.” Kohn Law 

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

three factors are satisfied, the court in which the second action was filed may transfer, 

stay, or dismiss the proceeding in order to allow the court in which the first action was 

filed to decide whether to try the case. Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d 

622, 628-29 (9th Cir. 1991). 

 Here, upon consideration of the relevant factors, the Court finds that all three 

factors weigh in favor of transferring the instant action to the Central District. 

Defendants filed a notice of related cases regarding a similar action, Gant v. ALDI Inc. 

and AI California LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-3109-JAK-PLA, which was originally filed in 

Los Angeles County Superior Court on February 14, 2019 and removed to the Central 

District of California on April 22, 2019. See Doc. No. 7. Notably, Gant was filed nearly 

four months prior to the instant action. Additionally, both Gant and the instant action 

involve the same defendants. See Doc. No. 11 at 1. Moreover, the proposed class in this 

action is encompassed by the proposed class in Gant and both cases assert substantially 

similar wage and hour claims, such as failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and 

rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay wages at 

termination, and failure to reimburse all reasonable and necessary business expenses. See 

id. Further, the parties “jointly request the transfer of this action to the Central District of 

California.” Id. at 2. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:19-cv-01269-MMA-MDD Document 12 Filed 08/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
 -3- 19cv1269-MMA (MDD)

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

 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the requirements of the first-to-file 

rule are satisfied and the Court, in its discretion, finds that transferring the instant action 

to the Central District of California will preserve judicial resources. Accordingly, the 

Court GRANTS the joint motion and TRANSFERS this action to the Central District of 

California.1

 The Clerk of Court is instructed to terminate all pending motions, deadlines, 

and hearings and close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2019

 _____________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

                                               

1

 The Court declines to address the parties’ request regarding the automatic timing requirements 

set forth in Central District Local Rule 23-3. See Doc. No. 11 at 2. The parties can direct any such 

request to the assigned district judge in the Central District of California. 

Case 3:19-cv-01269-MMA-MDD Document 12 Filed 08/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3