Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01347/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01347-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
GEO Secure Services, LLC
Defendant
Chris Mazzei
Plaintiff
The GEO Group, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRIS MAZZEI,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01347-JLT-CDB

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO FILE A 

JOINT STATUS REPORT

TEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Chris Mazzei (“Mazzei”) originally filed this putative class action in the Superior 

Court of California, County of Kern on September 8, 2022. (Doc. 1-2 p. 5).1 He asserts various 

causes of action and seeks to represent all current and former California employees of Defendant 

GEO Secure Services, LLC (“GEO”) employed within four years prior to the filing of the 

complaint. (Doc. 20 p. 4). The complaint alleges that GEO committed violations of the 

California Labor Code by failing to provide meal and rest periods; pay wages; comply with 

employee wage statement requirements; timely pay wages at termination; timely pay employees; 

reimburse business expenses; pay for all hours worked; provide a place of employment that is 

safe and healthful; and unfair competition. (Doc. 1-2 pp. 6-25). Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7,512,558, 

510, 1194, 1194.2, 226(a)(e), 1174(d), 204(a)(b), 2802, 210, 218, 222, 6400, 6401, 6403, 6404, 

6407; 8 C.C.R. § 3202; Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code § 17200.

The action was removed to this Court on October 20, 2022. (Doc. 1). Thereafter, on May 

5, 2023, GEO filed the pending motion to stay. (Doc. 16). Mazzei filed an opposition on May 

1 The Court references the pagination provided by CM/ECF. 

Case 1:22-cv-01347-JLT-CDB Document 27 Filed 01/08/24 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

19, 2023 (Doc. 20) and GEO filed a reply on May 30, 2023. (Doc. 21). The motion to stay was 

referred to the undersigned on October 31, 2023. (Doc. 25).

I. The Motion to Stay

GEO moves to stay the present suit until the resolution of several earlier-filed actions as it 

argues that those actions involve substantially the same parties and issues as the case at bar. The 

alleged earlier-filed actions are as follows: Tezsanique Hendrickson v. GEO Secure Services, 

LLC, California Superior Court for San Bernadino County, Case No. CIVSB2118376 (filed on 

June 28, 2021) (“Hendrickson”); Samdeeshia Bell v. GEO Secure Services, LLC, Case No. 5:21-

cv-1927 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2021) (“Bell”); Priscilla Lopez v. GEO Secure Services, LLC, 

California Superior Court for Imperial County, Case No. ECU002060 (filed on September 9, 

2021) (“Lopez”); Nickolas Ortiz v. The GEO Group Inc., d/b/a GEO California, Inc. et al., 

California Superior Court for Kern County, Case No. BCV 21-102469, 22-100659 (filed October 

20, 2021, March 22, 2022) (“Ortiz”); Daniel Perez v. The GEO Group, Inc., d/b/a GEO Group 

California, Inc., et al., California Superior Court for San Diego County, Case No. 37-2022-

00000670-CU-OE-CTL (filed on January 6, 2022) (“Perez”); Julie Castillo v. GEO Secure 

Services, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00445-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2023) (“Castillo”). 

Consistent with Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court takes judicial notice 

of the above case files and their respective dockets. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2); Harris v. County of 

Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2012). The Court notes that in the Lopez action, the 

Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of settlement. Lopez, Case No. ECU002060 

(Doc. 78). The motion for preliminary approval of settlement identifies Priscilla Lopez, Julie 

Castillo, Samdeeshia Bell, Tezsanique Hendrickson and Nickolas Ortiz as named plaintiffs in 

support of a settlement. Id. at 1. In the Castillo action, the parties filed a notice of settlement, 

which references a “global mediation” to attempt to resolve several similar cases. Castillo, Case 

No. 3:22-cv-00445-MMA-MMD at (Docs. 49, 55). The Court also takes judicial notice of an 

order granting final approval of a class and collective action settlement of the Perez action, which 

was granted on October 6, 2023. Thus, it appears that the trajectory of the earlier-filed actions 

will not necessarily overlap with this one. See Tinnin v. Sutter Valley Medical Foundation, 647 

Case 1:22-cv-01347-JLT-CDB Document 27 Filed 01/08/24 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

F.Supp.3d 864, 873-74 (E.D. Cal. 2022) (finding a stay under Landis v. North American Co., 299 

U.S. 248 254 (1936) to be inappropriate as the motion practice in the underlying cases was guided 

towards settlement and was not duplicative to anything in the case at bar). 

In light of the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within ten (10) days of entry of 

this Order, the parties shall file a joint report setting forth whether (1) the parties in the earlierfiled actions have reached/anticipate reaching a resolution of their cases without addressing the 

allegedly parallel issues in this case, and (2) whether Mazzei is party to any settlement agreement 

in any of the above-referenced actions or is in the process of reaching a settlement agreement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01347-JLT-CDB Document 27 Filed 01/08/24 Page 3 of 3