Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-00123/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-00123-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRIS AZPEITIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TESORO REFINING & MARKETING 

COMPANY LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00123-JST 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

CONSOLIDATE AND APPOINTING 

INTERIM LEAD COUNSEL

Re: ECF No. 49

Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate Azpeitia v. Tesoro Refining and 

Marketing Company LLC et al., Case No. 17-cv-00123-JST, and Jinetra Bonner v. Tesoro 

Refining & Marketing Company, LLC, Case No. 17-cv-03850-JST, and Plaintiffs’ request for 

appointment of proposed interim lead counsel. ECF No. 49. Defendants do not oppose the 

motions. ECF No. 51. For the reasons set forth below, the Court consolidates the Bonner case 

with this action and appoints Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP as interim lead class counsel.

1

I. CONSOLIDATION2

A. Procedural History

On January 10, 2017, the Azpeitia Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of California. ECF No. 1. On March 22, 2017, 

Jinetra Bonner filed suit in Sacramento Superior Court, alleging the same claims and one 

additional claim. See Bonner, ECF No. 1. On May 3, 2017, Defendants removed the Bonner

 

1

The Court concludes that the motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 

7-1(b). The motion hearing scheduled for September 28, 2017 is vacated. The case management 

conference on that date remains as set. 

2

For further factual background and detail on the nature of the claims, refer to the Court’s order 

granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. ECF No. 43; Azpeitia v. 

Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co. LLC, Case No. 17-cv-00123, 2017 WL 3115168 (N.D. Cal. 

July 21, 2017). 

Case 3:17-cv-00123-JST Document 52 Filed 09/14/17 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Id. On June 12, 

2017, the Bonner Plaintiff filed a Motion to Change Venue to the Northern District of California 

and a Notice of Related Case in the Azpeitia action. Bonner, ECF No. 5-6. The Bonner court 

granted the motion to transfer on July 6, 2017. Id., ECF No. 14. This Court related the two 

actions on July 25, 2017. Id., ECF No. 22. On July 21, 2017, this Court issued an order granting 

in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss in the Azpeitia action. ECF No. 43. 

The Bonner court terminated as moot the pending motion to dismiss in the Bonner action, raising 

the same legal and factual arguments as in the Azpeitia motion, in connection with the transfer 

order. Bonner, ECF No. 14. Plaintiffs now wish to consolidate the two actions. 

B. Legal Standard

“When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it 

. . . may order all the actions consolidated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The “district court has broad 

discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research 

Co. v. Dist. Court, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). “In determining whether or not to 

consolidate cases, the Court should ‘weigh the interest of judicial convenience against the 

potential for delay, confusion and prejudice.’” Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 

1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Machine Shop, Inc., 720 

F. Supp. 805, 806-07 (N.D. Cal. 1989). 

C. Analysis

Both actions share the same proposed class, the same legal claims for the same class 

period, the same Defendants, and nearly identical factual allegations. ECF No. 49 at 4. The First 

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in Azpeitia alleges claims Defendants breached their legal 

obligations to authorize and permit rest periods and to furnish timely and accurate wage 

statements, pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 226, 226.3, 226.7 and California Welfare 

Commission Wage Order No. 1-2001 (“Wage Order 1-2001”). ECF No. 21. The complaint in 

Bonner includes identical wage and hour claims with an additional claim for meal break 

violations. Bonner, ECF No. 1. On June 29, 2017, the Bonner court dismissed Bonner’s meal 

break claims, pursuant to stipulation, to limit her complaint to the same claims alleged in Azpeitia. 

Case 3:17-cv-00123-JST Document 52 Filed 09/14/17 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Northern District of California

Bonner, ECF No. 12. On July 21, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss in Azpeitia. ECF No. 43. 

The two related actions clearly involve common questions of law and fact. Accordingly, 

both matters require a determination of whether Defendants’ alleged conduct violates wage and 

hour law. Moreover, the Court is not aware of any delay or prejudice to either party that would 

result from consolidation of the two cases, particularly where both cases are in the early stages of 

litigation and where the parties have stipulated to extend the time for Defendants to respond to a 

possible consolidated complaint to avoid duplication of efforts. ECF No. 46. 

Efficiency considerations favor consolidation in this case. Motion practice, discovery, and 

trial will all be based on the same common set of facts and legal issues. Consolidation will allow 

both cases to proceed at the same pace, promote judicial economy by lessening the Court’s burden 

in managing the two cases, and streamline the parties’ briefing requirements. 

The Court accordingly grants Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate. 

II. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiffs also move for an order designating Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP as interim 

lead class counsel in order to best protect the interests of the putative class and promote efficiency 

of case management. 

A. Legal Standard

Rule 23(g)(3) provides that “[t]he court may designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a 

putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a class action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

23(g). This rule “authorizes [a] court to designate interim counsel during the pre-certification 

period if necessary to protect the interests of the putative class.” Wang v. OCZ Technology Grp., 

Inc., Case No. C 11-01415 PSG, 2011 WL 13156817, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2011) (quoting 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2)(A) advisory committee notes on 2003 amends.) “[D]esignation of interim 

counsel clarifies responsibility for protecting the interests of the class during precertification 

activities, such as making and responding to motions, conducting any necessary discovery, 

moving for class certification, and negotiating settlement.” Manual for Complex Litig., § 21.11 

(4th ed. 2004).

Case 3:17-cv-00123-JST Document 52 Filed 09/14/17 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1)(A) requires that courts consider the following 

factors in appointing class counsel: “(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating 

potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex 

litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel's knowledge of the applicable 

law; and (iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class.” The Court looks to 

those factors in designating interim class counsel as well. See Parkinson v. Hyundai Motor Am., 

2006 WL 2289801, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2006) (“Rule 23(g) provides criteria to consider when 

appointing class counsel, without distinguishing interim counsel. Presumably, the same factors 

apply[.]”); In re Air Cargo Shipping Serv. Antitrust Litig., 240 F.R.D. 56, 57 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) 

(“[I]t appears to be generally accepted that the considerations set out in Rule 23(g)(1)(C), which 

governs appointment of class counsel once a class is certified, apply equally to the designation of 

interim class counsel before certification.”).

The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ proposal and concludes that lead class counsel 

comprised of Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP would “fairly and adequately represent the interests 

of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B). The firm has done extensive work identifying, 

investigating, and prosecuting the potential claims. ECF No. 49 at 8; ECF No. 49-1 ¶ 11. The 

firm has experience handling complex litigation and knowledge of the applicable law. Id.; Id. ¶¶

12-15; ECF No. 49-2 at 35-39. The firm has established that it will commit adequate resources to 

representing the class. ECF No. 49-1 ¶¶ 18-19. Having one lead class counsel for the consolidated 

action will also promote judicial efficiency, and all three firms representing the Plaintiffs agree 

that Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP should be appointed interim lead class counsel, with the 

hours expended litigating the action to be distributed evenly between the firms. ECF No. 49 at 9; 

ECF No. 49-1 ¶ 18. Accordingly, the Court designates Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP as interim 

lead class counsel.

CONCLUSION

The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidates and appoints Hadsell Stormer & 

Renick, LLP as interim lead class counsel. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a consolidated

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-00123-JST Document 52 Filed 09/14/17 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

complaint within 45 days of the date of this order. Defendants shall file their answer to Plaintiffs’ 

consolidated complaint within 45 days after Plaintiffs file their consolidated complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2017

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00123-JST Document 52 Filed 09/14/17 Page 5 of 5