Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06614/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06614-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Big Lots Stores, Inc.
Defendant
Linda Johnson
Plaintiff
Bryan de Simas
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

BRYAN DE SIMAS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BIG LOTS STORES, INC., et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 06-6614 SI

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

On March 2, 2007, the Court issued an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the

complaint, and granting defendants’ motion to stay the action pending resolution of a parallel state court

action. Plaintiffs now move for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the order. For the following

reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion, without prejudice.

Plaintiffs urge the Court to reconsider its conclusion that plaintiffs did not have valid and timely

Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) claims, and therefore that plaintiffs’ proposed amendment to

the complaint was futile. Plaintiffs base their request for reconsideration on new California case law,

and on supposed legal errors committed by this Court. 

This action is currently stayed, pursuant to the Colorado River doctrine, pending resolution of

a state court action, Espinosa. Espinosa was filed as a putative class action in Ventura County Superior

Court on September 30, 2005. On September 29, 2006, the Espinosa parties agreed to a classwide

settlement. Subsequently, on October 24, 2006, plaintiffs Bryan De Simas and Linda Johnson filed this

action in this Court, alleging essentially the same claims as in Espinosa. Both De Simas and Johnson

are members of the Espinosa class, and neither opted out. On November 6, 2006, the Superior Court

entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in Espinosa. On January

Case 3:06-cv-06614-SI Document 58 Filed 05/21/07 Page 1 of 2
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

15, 2007, plaintiffs in this action filed the motion for leave to amend the complaint to add PAGA claims.

On April 30, 2007, in the Espinosa case, the Superior Court entered a Final Order Approving Class

Action Settlement, and Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice. See Final Order (Docket No. 55, Ex. A).

Based on this Court’s cursory reading of the Final Order, it appears to bar plaintiffs’ action in

this Court. See id. at 2:11-13 (“the Court further finds that Class Members Bryan de Simas and Linda

Johnson did not submit a Request for Exclusion, and thus are Class Members bound by the terms of the

Settlement and this Final Order.”); 4:5-14 (releasing all claims “of any nature for, or which relate to,

the payment of wages, the payment of overtime, the payment of wages for off-the-clock work, . . .

violations of the California Labor Code (including but not limited to sections . . . 2698, 2699

[(PAGA)]),” etc.). However, De Simas and Johnson filed a motion for reconsideration of the Final

Order in the Espinosa case. That motion is scheduled to be heard on June 18, 2007. 

Any action, at this point, on plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is likely to be futile. Even if

the Court reconsiders its prior order, and allows plaintiffs to amend the complaint to add PAGA claims,

and lifts the stay, plaintiffs’ action will likely be barred by the Espinosa settlement. Furthermore, it does

not appear that any action taken, or not taken, by this Court will have any impact on the Espinosa

settlement. The Court will therefore DENY plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, but without prejudice

to renewal should the Espinosa action somehow not ultimately result in a bar to this action or the

proposed amendments to the complaint. 

In light of the current status of Espinosa, the Court continues the Case Management Conference

currently scheduled for May 25, 2007, to June 29, 2007. The stay is extended to that date as well. The

Court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, without prejudice.

(Docket No. 56)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06614-SI Document 58 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 2