Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02178/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02178-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:17-cv-2178-CAB-(NLS)

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

ELIZABETH FUENTES, individually, 

and on behalf of herself and others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, 

INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES 

1 through 50 inclusive,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-2178-CAB-(NLS)

ORDER ON MOTION TO 

TRANSFER 

[Doc. No. 3]

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Transfer Case to

the Central District of California Pursuant to the First-to-File Rule. [Doc. No. 3.] For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the joint motion. 

On October 24, 2017, Plaintiff Elizabeth Fuentes filed a putative class action 

complaint against Defendant in the Southern District of California (the “Fuentes Action” ) 

alleging various wage and hour claims against the Defendant, including failure to pay 

overtime and minimum wages and related claims, along with a claim for violation of the 

Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). [Doc. No. 1.]

Case 3:17-cv-02178-CAB-NLS Document 4 Filed 12/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:17-cv-2178-CAB-(NLS)

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

On January 15, 2016, Plaintiff Maria Duran filed a putative class action complaint 

(the “Duran Action”) against Defendant in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging a single 

cause of action for violation of PAGA. Defendant removed the action to the Central 

District of California on February 9, 2017. See Case No. 2:17-cv-01072-AB-E, Doc. No. 

1. Subsequently, on August 23, 2017, a Third Amended Complaint was filed in the Duran 

Action. The third amended complaint alleges putative class claims against Defendant for 

failure to pay minimum wages, overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, 

violation of Labor Code sections 201-203, unfair competition, and a PAGA claim. See id.

at Doc. No. 17. On October 27, 2017, Plaintiff Duran filed a notice of pendency of other 

actions with the Central District, informing the Court of the related Fuentes Action. [Doc 

No. 3 at 6-8.]

After becoming aware of the similarities between their suits, Plaintiffs Fuentes and 

Duran agreed to consolidate their cases and “request transfer of this case to the Central 

District under Case Number. 2:17-cv-01072 because the actions are related within the 

meaning of Local Civil Rule 40.le and g.” [Doc. No. 3 at 3:27-4:3.] Further, the parties in 

the Fuentes Action stipulated, agreed and jointly moved that it should be transferred in its 

entirety to the United States District Court for the Central District of California pursuant 

to the first-to-file rule so that it can be consolidated with the Duran Action. [Id. at 3-4.]

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, 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. However, it 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, namely: “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 Circuit). If the rule applies, the court in which the second suit was 

Case 3:17-cv-02178-CAB-NLS Document 4 Filed 12/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:17-cv-2178-CAB-(NLS)

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

filed may transfer, stay or dismiss the proceeding in order to allow the court in which the 

first suit was filed to decide whether to try the case. Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 

946 F.2d 622, 628-29 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Upon consideration of the factors to be contemplated in deciding whether to apply 

the first to file rule, the Court finds they weigh in favor of transfer of the Fuentes Action

to the Central District. Here, Plaintiff Duran filed her lawsuit over a year before Plaintiff 

Fuentes, with the governing complaint in the Central District being filed only a couple of 

months before the complaint filed in the Fuentes Action. Furthermore, Plaintiff Fuentes 

stipulation to join the Central District suit will result in all parties being present in the 

Duran Action. Additionally, the action in the Central District will resolve the myriad of 

related, if not identical, labor and employment issues raised in both actions. 

In light of the above, and the parties in the Fuentes action joining in the current 

motion, the Court chooses to apply the first-to-file rule. According, the Court GRANTS

the joint motion and TRANSFERS this action to the Central District. Upon transfer, the 

parties may request permission from the Honorable Andre Birotte Jr., to consolidate this 

matter with the Duran action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-02178-CAB-NLS Document 4 Filed 12/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3