Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02037/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02037-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

PARAGON SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

1:13-cv-02037-AWI-MJS

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING 

MOTION TO STAY

On March 5, 2014, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng issued his Findings 

and Recommendation that Plaintiff’s action be stayed in light of the parallel action in the 

Southern District of California; Mireles v. Paragon Systems, Inc., S.D. Cal. Case No. 3:13-cv00122-L-BGS. (Doc. 18.) The Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties appearing 

in the action. On March 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. 

(Doc. 20.) On March 25, 2014, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff's objections.

Turning to Defendant's motion to stay, in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully 

reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections to the 

Findings and Recommendation do not persuade this Court that the Findings and Recommendation 

are, in any way, incorrect. Plaintiff has raised three primary objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 

Case 1:13-cv-02037-DAD-MJS Document 23 Filed 05/14/14 Page 1 of 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

2

recommendation that a stay be imposed: that 1) the Defendants in this case present different or 

additional issues from those in Mireles, 2) the Mireles Action in not procedurally further ahead of 

this case, and 3) the Defendant’s failure to remove or transfer to the Southern District has 

somehow waived the right to request a stay in this case. 

As to Plaintiff’s first contention, the conclusion that “[the] Lopez case involves four 

defendants, each with their own set of contracts and/or Collective Bargaining Agreements 

“CBA”)”, Doc. 20, p.2, is still inadequate to show “how those additional defendants present 

different or additional issues.” (Doc. 18, p.6.) Further, despite Plaintiff’s allegations to the 

contrary, the putative classes at issue in both actions are nearly, if not completely identical. (See 

Doc. 18, p.6; Doc. 4-1, p.8-9; Doc. 10-3, p.9-11.) The putative classes both purport to represent 

the same class of plaintiffs throughout the State of California. (Compare Doc. 4-1, p. 8 (“All 

...employees who worked for Defendants in the State of California from August 2012 to final 

judgment”) with Doc. 10-3, p. (“...individuals employed by DEFENDANT (sic) throughout 

California.”).) 

As to Plaintiff’s second contention, the Mireles Action has progressed at a reasonable 

pace and this history of this action does not persuade the Court that this action will progress any 

faster than the Mireles action. In fact, the substantial discovery completed in the Mireles action 

tends to indicate that it is further progressed than this case. 

As to Plaintiff’s third contention, Defendants were required to remove this action to this 

District and Division. Section 1441 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that “any civil 

action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original 

jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the 

United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 

(emphasis added.) Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant could have removed to the Southern District is 

in error. Defendant is correct that 29 U.S.C. § 185 only deals with the filing of suit, not removal 

to federal court. Regardless, the motion for stay was filed approximately a month after removal 

and only eight days after Plaintiff attempted to certify a class that is almost identical to the

Mireles putative class. Accordingly, Defendant took action to prevent further development of this 

Case 1:13-cv-02037-DAD-MJS Document 23 Filed 05/14/14 Page 2 of 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

3

case when it became reasonably apparent that this action mirrors the Mireles action.

It is this Court’s opinion that Judge Seng correctly concluded, based on the “overlap in 

claims and parties, and the potential expenditure of scarce judicial resources to adjudicate nearly 

identical cases, the equities in this case favor staying of the Lopez Action.” (Doc 18, p.9.) 

Plaintiff has requested oral argument as to this issue. (Doc. 20, p.4.) After having 

reviewed all competent evidence submitted this Court has made the determination that this matter 

is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Eastern District Local Rule 230(g). 

Defendant has directed this Court to two typographical errors in the Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendation: on page 5, lines 6-8 the dates of initial filing of the Mireles 

Action in state court and removal to federal court should read “December 16, 2012” and “January 

16, 2013”, respectively. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted with an amendment only 

to correct the typographical error described above;

2. Defendant’s motion to stay is GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff’s request for hearing to present oral argument is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02037-DAD-MJS Document 23 Filed 05/14/14 Page 3 of 3