Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07522/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07522-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

JIMMY ELLISON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

AUTOZONE INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C06-07522 MJJ

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Defendant Autozone, Inc.’s Motion To Dismiss (Docket No. 33.) For the

following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jimmy Ellison is a former employer of Defendant AutoZone, Inc. His First

Amended Complaint, a class action complaint, alleges that Autozone failed to pay him and the

putative class all wages earned when they were allegedly forced to work off-the-clock, deprived of

meal and rest periods, and issued late final paychecks. (Docket No. 31.) Ellison asserts eleven

related claims for state law wage violations, seeking regular, overtime and minimum wages, an

injunction and restitution, civil and statutory penalties, liquidated damages, punitive damages,

prejudgment interest, and legal fees and costs. (Id.) 

Counsel for Ellison also represents the plaintiffs in a related class action against the same

defendant also pending before this Court: Moreno et al. v. AutoZone, Inc., No. C 05-4432 MJJ

Case 3:06-cv-07522-CRB Document 41 Filed 06/20/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

(“Moreno action”). The operative complaint in the Moreno action (C 05-4432, Docket No. 110)

asserts nine claims and requests class certification of current and former AutoZone employees who

were allegedly forced to work off-the-clock, were deprived of meal and rest periods, and received

late final paychecks. The plaintiffs in the Moreno action seek unpaid wages, overtime wages,

minimum wages, statutory wages, an injunction and restitution, civil and statutory penalties,

liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Unlike Ellison, the Moreno

plaintiffs do not plead claims for quantum meruit or for inaccurate wage statements. However, there

is undeniably significant factual overlap between the operative complaints in the two actions.

In the Moreno action, this Court has stayed prosecution of the plaintiffs’ classwide claims for

alleged meal and rest period violations pending resolution of a state court class action settlement as

well as resolution by the California Supreme Court of current pending cases affecting the private

right of action for meal and rest period claims asserted by the Moreno plaintiffs. (C 05-4432,

Docket Nos. 61, 82.) Also in the Moreno action, the parties filed a stipulated pre-certification

scheduling order on March 2, 2006, which stipulated that the deadline to join additional parties was

May 31, 2006. (C 05-4432, Docket No. 31.) Though filed as a stipulated proposed order, this Court

did not formally approve the proposed order.

LEGAL STANDARD

District courts have inherent authority to dismiss duplicative cases brought for purposes of

harassment or of evading prior court orders. “When a plaintiff files a second complaint alleging the

same cause of action as a prior, pending, related action, the second complaint may be dismissed.” 

Oliney v. Gardner, 771 F.2d 856, 859 (5th Cir. 1985); see also In re Cypress Semiconductor Litig.,

864 F. Supp. 957, 959 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (“The filing of a successive, identical class action qualifies

as abusive regardless of whether class certification was granted or denied in an earlier case; both

scenarios entail unnecessary duplication.”) This Court has a duty to “ensure that the plaintiff does

not use the incorrect procedure of filing duplicative complaints to expand procedural rights he would

not otherwise enjoy – particularly for the purpose of circumventing the rules pertaining to the

amendment of complaints.” Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 71 (3d. Cir. 1977); see also

Oliney, 771 F.2d at 859.

Case 3:06-cv-07522-CRB Document 41 Filed 06/20/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Ellison apparently did inquire whether AutoZone would stipulate an amendment adding his claims to the Moreno

action, but Autozone declined to so stipulate. 

2

 However, the Court rejects some of AutoZone’s more serious allegations. There is no basis for this Court to

conclude that Ellison violated any court order issued in the Moreno action, which do not bind him as a non-party. Nor does

Ellison’s failure to promptly file a Local Rule 3-13 Notice persuade this court that he intended to judge-shop, given that

Ellison’s initial complaint expressly identified the action as related to the Moreno action. Accordingly, the facts before this

Court do not present nearly as egregious a situation as in Chinn v. Giant Food, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 331 (D. Md. 2000), in

which the district court dismissed a duplicative action and sanctioned the plaintiffs’ attorneys. In Chinn, plaintiffs’ counsel

intentionally failed to identify the second case as related in an effort shop for a different judge, and admitted an intent to

manipulate the judicial process. Moreover, the joinder in the second Chinn action of seventeen plaintiff severed from the

first action was a direct violation of a court order that bound those parties. Id. at 333-34.

3

ANALYSIS

AutoZone alleges that Ellison has brought a duplicative class action in an effort to

circumvent existing court orders in the Moreno case, and seeks dismissal of the entire action on that

basis. Ellison denies these allegations, contending that his action is not identical with the Moreno

action and averring that he brought the class action “[t]o preserve the rights possessed by him and

the classes he seeks to represent – rights which were evaporating with the passage of time, due to

statutes of limitations.” (Opposition at 7:5-7.) Ellison also contends that the various orders entered

in Moreno do not apply to him as he is not a party to that action. However, Ellison also indicates

that he “will be content should this Court choose to . . . consolidate this case with the Moreno action,

or . . . treat his complaint as an amendment of the Moreno complaint.” (Id. at 5 n.5) 

Given the large degree of overlap between the class claims raised in the Moreno action and

the instant action, and the fact that plaintiffs in both actions are represented by the same counsel, this

Court takes seriously the risk that Ellison’s action could be improperly used to expand procedural

rights he or other class members would not otherwise enjoy. Though Ellison insists he filed the

action to preserve his substantive rights, Ellison could have done so by filing an appropriate

administrative or state action, rather than filing an entirely new federal class action that is

duplicative in many respects of the pending Moreno action. The Court is also troubled that Ellison

did not seeking leave from this Court to amend the Moreno complaint to add his claims before filing

his own action.1

 Ellison’s conduct raises at least the specter that his separate action could be used by

Ellison or other putative class members to circumvent the various orders and deadlines that apply to

the Moreno action.2

Case 3:06-cv-07522-CRB Document 41 Filed 06/20/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Nonetheless, the Court does not find that outright dismissal of Ellison’s class action, as

requested by AutoZone, is warranted. Though largely overlapping with the Moreno class action,

Ellison’s class action does assert class claims (quantum meruit and inaccurate wage statements), and

seeks to represent classes, that are not found in the Moreno action. Dismissal of Ellison’s action

would not serve to protect the interests of the putative classes unique to Ellison’s action.

Moreover, this Court has adequate means at its disposal, short of outright dismissal, to

protect against the risk that Ellison’s action would provide Ellison or the putative class members an

opportunity to forum-shop or avoid the application of this Court’s prior orders. All of the limitations

that AutoZone contends Ellison is attempting to circumvent – limitations on pre-certification

discovery, imposition of a stay pending resolution of state court proceedings, and deadlines for

adding lead plaintiffs for the proposed classes identified in the Moreno action – are limitations

driven by case-management considerations. It is well within this Court’s case-management powers

to impose identical or similar limitations on Ellison’s actions, as well as make any additional rulings

necessary to prevent unnecessarily duplicative proceedings. 

The Court therefore declines to exercise its inherent power to dismiss Ellison’s action. 

Instead, it will address the concerns raised by AutoZone at the Rule 16 initial case management

conference. Accordingly, the parties should be prepared to discuss and resolve, at the initial case

management conference, any and all appropriate measures that this Court should implement to

prevent inconsistency and duplicity between the Ellison and Moreno actions, and to ensure Ellison

and the proposed class members obtain no unfair procedural advantage by proceeding with a

separate action. The parties should be prepared, in particular, to address whether a stay of some or

all of Ellison’s class claims, limitations on discovery, and/or consolidation of the two actions are

appropriate.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07522-CRB Document 41 Filed 06/20/07 Page 4 of 4