Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00997/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00997-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAC ANH LE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP,

Defendant

 /

No. C-07-5476 MMC

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND

DEFERRING IN PART RULING ON

DEFENDANT’S MOTION; DIRECTING

PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

TRANSFERRED TO EASTERN

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A); CONTINUING

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Before the Court is defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP’s “Motion for a Stay;

Motion to Dismiss; Motion to Strike; and Motion for a More Definite Statement,” filed

January 14, 2008. Plaintiff Lac Anh Le has filed opposition, to which defendant has

replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the

motion, the Court hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for March 7, 2008, and will

direct the parties to show cause why the instant action should not be transferred to the

Eastern District of California.

Plaintiff, who worked for defendant as an “Associate,” alleges defendant has

improperly classified Associates, including himself, as employees exempt from the

protection of statutes requiring payment of overtime compensation. In his complaint, which

plaintiff brings on behalf of a putative class of Associates, plaintiff alleges one federal

Case 2:08-cv-00997-LKK -EFB Document 30 Filed 03/04/08 Page 1 of 4
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

1

Defendant asserts it is “divided into various client lines of service,” (see Def.’s Mot.

to Stay at 11:21), and that plaintiff worked in the “[a]ssurance line of service,” (see id. at

13:22-23). The plaintiffs in Campbell seek to represent a class of Associates who worked

“in the assurance and tax lines of service.” (See Pl.’s Req. for Judicial Notice, filed

February 15, 2008, Ex. 8 at 2:9-10.)

2

claim, specifically, a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”); plaintiff also alleges

six state law claims, specifically, violations of California law (1) requiring payment of

overtime compensation, (2) requiring meal breaks, (3) requiring rest breaks, (4) requiring

accurate record-keeping of hours worked, (5) requiring timely payment of wages due, and

(6) prohibiting unfair competition.

By the instant motion, defendant seeks an order staying the six state law claims in

favor of Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 6-CV-02376 LKK GGH, an earlier-filed

putative class action pending in the Eastern District of California. In Campbell, the

plaintiffs allege the same six state law claims, also on behalf of a putative class of

Associates employed by defendant. (See Def.s’ Req. for Judicial Notice, filed January 14,

2008, Ex. B.) The instant case differs from the Campbell action in two respects: first,

plaintiff herein alleges a FLSA claim, albeit based on the same set of facts as those on

which he based his state law overtime claim; and, second, plaintiff herein seeks to

represent a class that appears to encompass a group of Associates in addition to those

sought to be included in the putative class alleged in Campbell.

1

Defendant, relying on the “first-to-file rule,” (see Def.’s Mot. to Stay at 7:10), argues

the state law claims herein should be stayed in favor of Campbell to avoid duplicative

litigation and possible conflicting results, and to promote judicial economy and preserve the

litigants’ resources, but requests that the federal FLSA claim proceed in this forum.

A district court has discretion to stay an action where “a complaint involving the

same parties and issues has already been filed in another district.” See Alltrade, Inc. v.

Uniweld Products, Inc., 946 F. 2d 622, 625, 628 (9th Cir. 1991). At the present time,

however, the parties in Campbell and the parties in the instant action are not the same;

rather, the plaintiffs in Campbell are two individuals, Jason Campbell and Sarah Sobek,

Case 2:08-cv-00997-LKK -EFB Document 30 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

while the sole plaintiff herein is Lac Anh Le. Consequently, a stay under the first-to-file rule

is not warranted. Nevertheless, as the parties observe, the district court in Campbell has

recently conducted a hearing on a motion to certify a class, which motion, if granted, could

result in plaintiff herein becoming a party in both cases. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to

stay will be denied without prejudice.

Defendant also challenges the adequacy of the complaint. Specifically, defendant

seeks (1) dismissal of a portion of plaintiff’s claim under § 17200 of the California Business

& Professions Code, (2) an order striking certain matter from the complaint, and (3) a more

definite statement. The Court will defer ruling on defendant’s motion, to the extent it seeks

such relief, as it appears to the Court, for the reasons stated by defendant in support of its

motion for a stay, as well as for the additional reasons set forth below, a transfer of the

instant action to the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) may be

warranted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the

interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or

division where it might have been brought.”)

In particular, because the legal claims alleged in the instant action and those alleged

in the Campbell action present the same underlying issue, specifically, the propriety of

defendant’s classification of Associates as exempt from overtime, there is a likelihood that

the two actions would be consolidated, thus avoiding the potential for conflicting decisions

and providing a benefit to both the parties and witnesses. See A. J. Industries v. United

States District Court, 503 F. 2d 384, 389 (9th Cir. 1974) (holding “feasibility of consolidation”

with action in transferee court is “significant factor in a transfer decision” and “even the

pendency of an action in another district is important because of the positive effects it

might have in possible consolidation of discovery and convenience to witnesses and

parties”) (internal citation omitted); see also Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth)

§ 20.131 (2004) (“The objective of transfer [for multidistrict litigation] is to eliminate

duplication in discovery, avoid conflicting rulings and schedules, reduce litigation cost, and

save time and effort of the parties, the attorneys, the witnesses, and the courts.”). 

Case 2:08-cv-00997-LKK -EFB Document 30 Filed 03/04/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Additionally, because plaintiff seeks to proceed on behalf of a class, plaintiff’s choice of

forum is entitled to “less weight” than that to which it might otherwise be entitled. See Lou

v. Belzberg, 834 F. 2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding “when an individual brings a

derivative suit or represents a class, the named plaintiff’s choice of forum is given less

weight”). 

Accordingly, the parties will be directed to show cause why the instant action should

not be transferred to the Eastern District of California. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F. 2d

1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing “long-approved practice of permitting a court to transfer a

case sua sponte under . . . § 1404(a), so long as the parties are first given the opportunity

to present their views on the issue”).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above:

1. To the extent defendant seeks a stay of the state law claims, defendant’s motion

is hereby DENIED without prejudice; in all other respects, the Court defers ruling thereon.

2. The parties are hereby DIRECTED to show cause, in writing and no later than

March 24, 2008, why the instant action should not be transferred to the Eastern District of

California.

3. The Case Management Conference is hereby CONTINUED from April 18, 2008

to May 16, 2008; a Joint Case Management Statement shall be filed no later than May 9,

2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 2:08-cv-00997-LKK -EFB Document 30 Filed 03/04/08 Page 4 of 4