IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

TANESHA GUNN, on behalf of herself and 

all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., and 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., 

 Defendants. 

No. 1:12-cv-00743 

Judge Ruben Castillo 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 

TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND TO 

STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF THIS MOTION

I. INTRODUCTION 

On February 2, 2012, Plaintiff Tanesha Gunn (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Gunn”) filed this action 

for overtime against Defendants JPMorgan Chase & Co. (“JPMC”) and JPMorgan Chase Bank, 

N.A. (“Chase”) (collectively, “Defendants”) under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 

105/1 et seq. (“IMWL”).1 Plaintiff seeks to proceed as a class action on behalf of all current and 

former Personal Bankers who have been employed by Defendants in Illinois on or after February 

2, 2009. 

This case, however, is subsumed by an earlier-filed consolidated action seeking overtime 

claims on behalf of all Chase Personal Bankers nationwide under the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and certain state laws, currently proceeding in the U.S. 

 

1

 Defendants reserve all defenses in this action, including that JPMorgan Chase & Co. is not a 

proper defendant in this case because it did not employ Plaintiff or any members of the putative class, and 

that Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class are parties to arbitration agreements that preclude their 

claims or participation in this lawsuit. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00743 Document #: 17 Filed: 03/28/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:35
- 2 - 

District Court for the Central District of California (“Central District of California”). See 

Hightower & Ross v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (No. 11-CV-1802-PSG-PLAx, C.D. Cal.) 

(“Hightower”). The Hightower consolidated action consists of six wage and hour class and/or 

collective actions seeking overtime and/or other claims on behalf of non-exempt employees in 

Chase branches, including Personal Bankers, who have been employed in the United States on or 

after February 17, 2008. 

Because of the overlapping parties, putative classes, and allegations involving claims for 

overtime by Chase Personal Bankers, Defendants respectfully request that this Court follow the 

course of other courts and transfer this case to the Central District of California under the “firstto-file” rule. The first-to-file rule allows a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an action 

when a similar complaint has already been filed in another federal court. Transfer is warranted 

here because the allegations and putative class in the Hightower Amended Consolidated Class 

Action Complaint (“Hightower Consolidated Complaint”) substantially overlap and subsume the 

allegations and putative class in this case. Because proceeding with this later-filed action would 

waste judicial resources, result in potentially conflicting rulings, and be grossly inefficient, a 

transfer pursuant to the first-to-file rule to the Central District of California for consolidation 

with Hightower is appropriate. Defendants also request that this Court stay further proceedings 

in this case until the instant Motion is decided.2

II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

A. The Hightower Action And Related Wage And Hour Cases. 

 On March 2, 2011, plaintiffs Evan Hightower and Ann Ross filed a complaint against 

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. in the Central District of California. A copy of the Class Action 

 

2 In bringing this Motion, and in light of the number of competing actions already transferred to 

and consolidated with Hightower, Defendants do not waive their right to apply for centralized 

proceedings before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1407. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00743 Document #: 17 Filed: 03/28/12 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:36
- 3 - 

Complaint (“Hightower Compl.”) (Hightower Dkt. No. 1) is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 

Plaintiff Hightower alleged that he was a “Banker” at Chase, and plaintiff Ross alleged that she 

was a Chase Teller. (Hightower Compl. ¶¶ 14-15.) The Hightower plaintiffs asserted a claim for 

overtime under the FLSA, and sought to proceed as a nationwide collective action on behalf of 

all non-exempt employees in Chase’s bank branches, including specifically all Personal Bankers. 

(Hightower Compl. ¶ 32.) Plaintiffs also asserted California state law claims seeking overtime 

and other amounts on behalf of a class that included Personal Bankers in Chase’s California bank 

branches. (Hightower Compl. ¶¶ 56-85.) 

 In addition, seven other putative class and collective actions seeking overtime and other 

claims on behalf of Personal Bankers and/or other non-exempt employees in Chase’s branches 

have been filed, removed, and/or transferred, as related to Hightower.

3

 See Simpson v. 

JPMorgan Chase Bank (No. 11-CV-6061-PSG-PLAx, C.D. Cal.);4 Salazar v. JPMorgan Chase 

Bank, N.A. (No. 11-CV-4294-PSG-PLAx, C.D. Cal.);5 Henderson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

 

3

 Defendants respectfully request that the Court take judicial notice of these records from another 

federal court. Schmude v. Sheahan, 312 F. Supp. 2d 1047, 1064 (N.D. Ill. 2004) (citations omitted) 

(“[C]ourts routinely take judicial notice of documents filed in other courts . . . not for the truth of the 

matter asserted in the other litigation, but rather to establish the fact of such litigation and related 

filings.”).

4 On March 10, 2011, plaintiffs Regina Simpson and Regina Sturdivant filed their complaint in the 

Superior Court for the State of California for the County of San Diego (Case No. 37-2011-00087418-CUBT-CTL) (“Simpson”). On May 5, 2011, defendants removed the action to the Southern District of 

California (No. 11-CV-0985-BEN-CAB). (See Simpson Dkt. No. 10.) On July 13, 2011, the parties filed 

a Joint Motion and Stipulation to Transfer Case to the Central District of California, which the district 

court judge granted on July 19, 2011. (See Simpson Dkt. Nos. 10 and 11.) The case was related to 

Hightower and, thus, assigned to Judge Gutierrez. (See Simpson Dkt. No. 14.)

5

 In Salazar v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (Case No. 3:11-CV-00337) (“Salazar”), a case that was 

filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (“Southern District of California”), 

Chase filed a motion to transfer Salazar pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 or, in the alternative, to dismiss 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) because it alleged claims overlapping with Hightower’s claims. (See Salazar

Dkt. No. 7.) On May 18, 2011, an order granting the transfer was entered and the case was subsequently 

reassigned as a related matter to Judge Phillip S. Gutierrez, the presiding district judge in Hightower. 

(See Salazar Dkt. Nos. 11, 16, 17.)

Case: 1:12-cv-00743 Document #: 17 Filed: 03/28/12 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:37
- 4 - 

(No. 11-CV-3428-PSG-PLAx, C.D. Cal.);6 Buelna v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. (No. 11-CV4450-PSG-PLAx); Al-Chaikh v. JPMorgan Chase Bank (No. 11-CV-5646-PSG-PLAx, C.D. 

Cal.);7 Yanez v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (11-CV-08217-PSG-PLAx); Slikker v. JPMorgan 

Chase Bank N.A. (No. 11-CV-09727-PSG-PLAx).8

 Notably, on July 20, 2011, plaintiffs Dennis Khutoretsky, Mikhail Lirman, and Boris 

Shulman – all former Personal Bankers – filed an action entitled Khutoretsky v. J.P. Morgan 

Chase & Co. (No. 11-CV-4986(DAB)), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 

New York. Plaintiffs asserted a claim for overtime seeking to proceed as a collective action 

under the FLSA on behalf of Personal Bankers, and also asserted a claim for overtime under the 

New York Labor Law, Article 19, §§ 650 et seq., on behalf of Personal Bankers employed in 

New York (Khutoretsky Compl. ¶¶ 15, 40-43, 45-47.) On September 1, 2011, defendant filed a 

Motion to Dismiss, or, Alternatively, to Transfer or Stay under the first-filed rule. (See 

Khutoretsky Dkt. Nos. 10 and 11.) On September 23, 2011, Judge Batts granted defendant’s 

motion and transferred the case to Judge Gutierrez in the Central District of California even 

though plaintiffs alleged a New York state law class action for overtime, and even though 

plaintiffs limited their FLSA collective action to New York. A copy of the court’s Order on 

 

6

 On March 17, 2011, plaintiffs Kemah Henderson and Taquonna Lampkins filed an action in the 

Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (“Los Angeles Superior Court”) 

(Case No. BC457570) (“Henderson”). On April 21, 2011, Chase removed the case to federal court and, 

on June 10, 2011, it was reassigned to Judge Gutierrez as related to Hightower. (See Henderson Dkt. 

Nos. 1 and 15.) 

7

 On May 24, 2011, plaintiff Roger Al-Chaikh filed an action in the Los Angeles Superior Court 

(Case No. BC462142) (“Al-Chaikh”). On July 8, 2011, Chase removed the case to the Central District of 

California and, on July 22, 2011, the case was reassigned to Judge Gutierrez as related to Hightower. (See 

Al-Chaikh Dkt. Nos. 1 and 9.) 

8

 On November 22, 2011, Plaintiff Estella Slikker, a former Personal Banker, filed a class and 

collective action complaint in the Central District of California (No. 11-CV-09727-PSG-JCx) (“Slikker”). 

On November 22, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of related cases and, on November 22, 2011, the case was 

assigned to Judge Gutierrez. (See Slikker Dkt. Nos. 3 and 4.)

Case: 1:12-cv-00743 Document #: 17 Filed: 03/28/12 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:38
- 5 - 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or, Alternatively, to Transfer or Stay (Khutoretsky Dkt. No. 20, 

slip op.) is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 

On January 12, 2012, Plaintiff Gunn filed a Notice of Filing of Plaintiffs’ Consents to 

Sue Under Federal Labor Standards Act in the Hightower consolidated action in the Central 

District of California, thereby making her a party plaintiff before that Court and asserting her 

overtime claim under the FLSA. (Hightower Dkt. No. 51.) Plaintiff Gunn was represented in 

Hightower by the same counsel that filed this case on her behalf. 

B. Consolidation Of Related Wage And Hour Cases. 

On February 3, 2012, Judge Gutierrez granted plaintiffs leave to file a consolidated class 

action complaint. On February 6, 2012, plaintiffs filed the Hightower Consolidated Complaint 

on behalf of six of the previously-filed cases: Hightower, Salazar, Simpson, Al-Chaikh, Slikker, 

and Khutoretsky.

9

 A copy of the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Hightower 

Dkt. No. 48) is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. In the Hightower Consolidated Complaint, 

plaintiffs assert a claim for overtime under the FLSA, and seek to proceed as a nationwide 

collective action on behalf of all non-exempt retail branch employees in Chase’s bank branches, 

including Personal Bankers. (Hightower Consolidated Compl. ¶¶ 5, 87-102.) Plaintiffs also 

assert California and New York state law claims for overtime and other amounts on behalf of 

Personal Bankers and other Chase bank branch employees. (Hightower Consolidated Compl. ¶¶ 

6, 7, 103-64.) 

 

9

 By agreement, Al-Chaikh v. JPMorgan Chase Bank (No. 11-CV-5646-PSG-PLAx, C.D. Cal.), 

and Salazar v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (No. 11-CV-4294-PSG-PLAx, C.D. Cal.), were consolidated 

prior to consolidation with the rest of the matters. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00743 Document #: 17 Filed: 03/28/12 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:39
- 6 - 

C. On February 2, 2012, Plaintiff Gunn Filed This Substantially Similar Case 

Against Defendants JPMC And Chase. 

On February 2, 2012, nearly one year after Hightower was filed in the Central District of 

California, Plaintiff Gunn filed the instant action, asserting an overtime claim under Illinois law, 

and making allegations that overlap with those in Hightower. Indeed, many of the allegations in 

Plaintiff’s complaint in this case are copied word-for-word from Hightower: 

 Chase branch/managers were “required to draft and post weekly work schedules 

for non-exempt employees such as Personal Bankers. These schedules set forth 

Personal Bankers’ scheduled workdays and work hours. Managers do not 

typically schedule Personal Bankers to work more than 40 hours per week.” 

(Gunn Compl. ¶ 23; Hightower Consolidated Compl. ¶ 47.) 

 Class members “routinely worked in excess of” 45 hours per week and “were 

often required to work through their lunch-breaks and to remain at work after 

their scheduled shifts ended.” (Gunn Compl. ¶ 24; Hightower Consolidated 

Compl. ¶ 48.) 

 Defendants “strictly monitored any significant payment of overtime by its 

branches. . . . [and] counseled branch managers not to pay significant overtime 

and reprimanded them for doing so. Upon information and belief, Defendants [or 

Chase] treated significant payment of overtime by a Chase branch as an act of 

poor performance by the branch manager which was reflected negatively in the 

offending branch manager’s performance evaluations and compensation.” (Gunn 

Compl. ¶ 25; Hightower Consolidated Compl. ¶ 49.) 

 “Chase required branch managers to sign off on employees’ [or Personal 

Bankers’] time sheets, and the branch managers uniformly refused to sign off on 

any time sheets that included overtime. In fact, [plaintiffs’] branch managers 

instructed them and all other Personal Bankers to exclude overtime worked when 

submitting their time sheets at the end of each week.” (Gunn Compl. ¶ 26; 

Hightower Consolidated Compl. ¶ 50.) 

 As a result of these “uniform practices and policies,” Personal Bankers “were 

seldom, if ever, paid for overtime, even though they routinely worked overtime.” 

(Gunn Compl. ¶ 27; Hightower Consolidated Compl. ¶ 51.) 

 “At all relevant times, Defendants [or Chase] operated under a policy and practice 

of refusing to pay overtime compensation to . . .[plaintiffs and class members] for 

the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per week and demanding, 

encouraging, allowing, suffering and/or knowingly permitting” plaintiffs and class 

Case: 1:12-cv-00743 Document #: 17 Filed: 03/28/12 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:40
- 7 - 

members “to work off-the-clock.” (Gunn Compl. ¶ 31; Hightower Consolidated 

Compl. ¶ 162.) 

 “At all relevant times, Defendants [or Chase] willfully, regularly and repeatedly 

failed to pay . . . [plaintiffs and class members] at the required overtime rate of 

one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 

forth (40) hours per workweek.” (Gunn Compl. ¶ 32; Hightower Consolidated 

Compl. ¶ 163.) 

 In short, just like the plaintiffs in Hightower who allege all Personal Bankers were denied 

overtime compensation, Ms. Gunn alleges that she and all other current or former Illinois 

Personal Bankers were denied overtime compensation. Plaintiff Gunn seeks relief on behalf of 

herself and an Illinois class under the IMWL. (See Dkt. No. 1 (“Gunn Compl.”) ¶¶ 11, 30-33.)10

III. ARGUMENTS 

A. This Court Should Transfer The Gunn Action Because It 

Substantially Overlaps With The Putative Collective And Class 

Actions Already Proceeding In The Central District Of California. 

Under the “first-to-file” rule, a district court has discretion “to dismiss, transfer, or stay” a 

later-filed action “when two similar actions are filed before two different federal judges.” See 

Askin v. Quaker Oats Co., No. 11 CV 111, 2012 WL 517491, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2012) 

(staying the case pending the outcome of the pending motion to dismiss in the district court of 

California); Jaramillo v. Dineequity, Inc., 664 F. Supp. 2d 908, 917 (N.D. Ill 2009) (citing Serlin 

v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993); Pfizer v. Apotex, 640 F. Supp. 2d 

1006, 1007-08 (N.D. Ill. 2009)). There is no dispute that Hightower was filed first. 

1. The Parties in this Case are Substantially Similar to the Parties in the 

Hightower Matter. 

The parties in this action and Hightower “substantially overlap” for purposes of the firstto-file rule. Askin, 2012 WL 517491, at *3. “[C]ourts routinely look to the similarities of the 

proposed classes even where the court has not yet ruled on the certification question.” Id. Here, 

 

10 Plaintiff Gunn has since withdrawn her consent to proceed as a plaintiff in the Hightower action. 

(Hightower Dkt. No. 56.) 

Case: 1:12-cv-00743 Document #: 17 Filed: 03/28/12 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:41
- 8 - 

the putative collective action in Hightower seeks overtime on behalf of all Personal Bankers 

nationwide, including all Personal Bankers in Illinois, thereby completely subsuming the 

putative class in this case. See Moore v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., No. 07 C 5606, 2007 WL 

4354987, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 6, 2007) (citations omitted) (finding cases duplicative where 

proposed class in first-filed case included most but not all of the plaintiffs in the later-filed 

action); see also Walker v. Progressive Casualty Ins., Co., No. C03-656R, 2003 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 7871, at *4 (W.D. Wa. May 9, 2003) (finding substantial similarity given the overlap 

between the Washington state law class and the pending FLSA action). 

That the two actions assert claims on behalf of overlapping but not identical classes does 

not defeat the first-to-file rule. See Fryda v. Takeda Pharm. N. Am., Inc., No. 11-CV-00339, 

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42221, at *15-16 (N.D. Ohio. Apr. 14, 2011) (transferring second-filed 

state law putative class action to first-filed FLSA putative collective action); Fossum v. N.W. 

Mut. Life Ins. Co., No. C 10-2657 SI, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99904, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 

2010) (transferring the second-filed overtime action even though the two cases asserted different 

state and federal overtime claims and used different class periods to define the class and 

collective actions); Walker, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7871, at *10 (applying the first-filed rule and 

transferring second-filed action asserting state law overtime claims to first-filed action alleging 

FLSA claims); Mazzantini v. Rite Aid Corp., No. 11-cv-30172-MAP, 2011 WL 6293187 (D. 

Mass. Dec. 15, 2011) (applying the first-filed rule and transferring second-filed action asserting 

state law claims to first-filed action alleging FLSA claims and finding “significant[]” that “two 

other district courts have already transferred cases involving opt-in plaintiffs . . . who have filed 

independent state law claims in different districts” to the first-filed action). 

Case: 1:12-cv-00743 Document #: 17 Filed: 03/28/12 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:42
- 9 - 

When faced with a similar issue in Khutoretsky, Judge Batts of the Southern District of 

New York transferred the case to Judge Gutierrez in the Central District of California. 

Khutoretsky v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 11-CV-4986 (DAB) (S.D.N.Y.) (Exhibit 4 at 4) 

(“There is no question that Plaintiffs’ proposed New York-specific FLSA class/collective is a 

subset of the nationwide FLSA class/collective alleged in Hightower.”). 

2. Both this Case and the Hightower Case Challenge Alleged Unpaid 

Overtime Compensation for the Same Hours Worked. 

It is well established by courts in the Northern District of Illinois that whether cases are 

substantially similar for purposes of applying the first-to-file rule “is a question of substance 

rather than form.” Askin, 2012 WL 517491, at *4 (citing Jaramillo, 664 F. Supp. 2d at 916 

(citation omitted)). The fact that Gunn has alleged violations of the IMWL, not the FLSA, does 

not prevent the case from being transferred and consolidated with the Hightower action. “As 

long as the underlying facts are the same, as is the case here, the fact that the two complaints 

allege violations of different state laws is not enough to render them substantially dissimilar for 

purposes of the first to file analysis.” Id. (citation omitted). 

It is undisputed that the allegations in this case and in Hightower are substantially similar, 

as the underlying alleged facts in both cases are the same.11 Ms. Gunn seeks, for herself and a 

putative class of Chase Personal Bankers in Illinois, (1) the same overtime compensation (2) for 

the same hours worked (3) over the same period of time in this case that the first-filing plaintiffs 

seek for the same group of Chase Personal Bankers in Illinois (and nationwide) under the FLSA 

 

11 See also, e.g., Jaramillo, 664 F. Supp. 2d at 917 (citing Serlin, 3 F.3d at 224); Fuller v. 

Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 686, 690 (E.D. Tenn. 2005) (“[T]he issues in the two 

actions need not be identical; they need only substantively overlap.”); Pierce Mfg. Inc. v. First In Inc., 

No. 10-C-393, 2010 WL 2854258, at *3 (E.D. Wis. July 19, 2010) (“For purposes of the first-to-file rule, 

the actions being assessed need not be identical if there is substantial overlap with respect to the issues 

and parties.”); see also Ward v. Follett Corp., 158 F.R.D. 645, 648 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (“two actions 

involving overlapping issues” requires application of the first-to-file rule).

Case: 1:12-cv-00743 Document #: 17 Filed: 03/28/12 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:43
- 10 - 

in Hightower. The fact that Plaintiff Gunn’s claim in this case is filed under the IMWL on 

behalf of an Illinois class in no way diminishes its similarity to Hightower. The IMWL parallels 

the FLSA, and Illinois courts apply the same analysis to claims under the IMWL and the FLSA. 

Bjornson v. Daido Metal U.S.A., Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 837, 843 (N.D. Ill. 1998). In Walker v. 

Progressive Casualty Ins., Co., No. C03-656R, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7871, at *2 (W.D. Wa. 

May 9, 2003), the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the FLSA and Washington wage 

and hour statute were materially different. “Whatever the minor differences between those two 

statutes, these differences do not warrant maintaining this action.” Id. at *8. 

Indeed, the FLSA and Illinois law provide the same three-year maximum period of 

recovery. (Compare 29 U.S.C. § 255 and 820 ILCS 10/12.) Both Gunn and Hightower seek to 

recover the same types of relief on behalf of collective or class action members, including unpaid 

compensation, penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest and an award of attorneys’ fees and 

costs, for this maximum time period. (Compare Gunn Compl. ¶ 33 and Wherefore ¶, with

Hightower Compl. Prayer for Relief.)12 

Thus, the parties and allegations in this case are substantially similar to those in 

Hightower and this case should be transferred to the Central District of California, and 

consolidated with the six other cases that have already been transferred and consolidated in the 

Hightower action. 

 

12 Defendants deny that it would be appropriate to certify a class or collective action in either case. 

Nonetheless, only one court should have to decide whether these overlapping allegations can proceed on a 

class or collective basis and, if they are permitted to so proceed, the overtime claims of the overlapping 

class members. See Askin, 2012 WL 517491, at *3. “[C]ourts routinely look to the similarities of the 

proposed classes even where the court has not yet ruled on the certification question.” 

Case: 1:12-cv-00743 Document #: 17 Filed: 03/28/12 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:44
- 11 - 

B. Applying The “First-to-File” Rule To Transfer And Eventually 

Consolidating This Case With Hightower Will Promote Judicial Economy. 

Trial efficiency and the interests of justice weigh in favor of transfer. The Seventh 

Circuit has said that the first-filed case may proceed where allowing it to continue furthers the 

“interests of justice.” See Askin, 2012 WL 517491, at *5 (citing Research Automation, Inc. v. 

Schrader-Bridgeport Int’l., Inc., 626 F.3d 973, 978 (7th Cir. 2010)). Because the “interests of 

justice” relate to the “efficient administration of the federal courts,” there is no doubt that the 

California case should have priority. Id. 

Here, efficient administration requires a transfer so that the Gunn action can join the 

Hightower consolidated action.13 Both cases involve overtime claims against JPMC and Chase, 

both cases assert claims that Chase’s Personal Bankers were denied overtime compensation for 

the same hours worked, both cases assert class action claims on behalf of overlapping groups of 

individuals, and, in fact, the putative class in this case is entirely subsumed in the putative 

nationwide collective action in the Hightower case. Thus, it would be a waste of judicial and the 

parties’ resources to maintain these two cases in separate district courts when the cases involve 

overlapping parties, putative classes, and allegations. See Dole v. Diversified Collections 

Services, Inc., No. 88 C 1693, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14115, at *25 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 1990) 

(transferring FLSA case to Northern District of California where the Secretary of Labor had filed 

an FLSA case against the same defendant also challenging exempt status classification, to avoid 

duplicative litigation, and noting the interest of justice analysis may be determinative even if 

other § 1404(a) factors support denying a transfer request); see also Connors v. Lexington Ins. 

 

13 In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) gives district courts broad discretion to 

consolidate related cases to promote judicial efficiency, eliminate redundancy, and to conserve the 

parties’ and the courts’ resources. See BD v. DeBuono, 193 F.R.D. 117, 141 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (citing 

Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1285 (2d Cir. 1990)).

Case: 1:12-cv-00743 Document #: 17 Filed: 03/28/12 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:45
- 12 - 

Co., 666 F. Supp. at 434, 455 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) (transferring class action from Eastern District of 

New York to Southern District of Florida where both cases involved the same purported class, 

same defendants, and virtually identical issues, and noting that a crucial factor supporting case 

transfer was that denial would result in a waste of judicial resources). 

Moreover, allowing both courts to adjudicate the same claim for overtime presents the 

potential for inconsistent results. For instance, this Court, applying the standards of the FLSA as 

will be required, could find that Plaintiff Gunn or another Personal Banker in Illinois is not 

entitled to additional overtime, while the Hightower court could find otherwise (or vice versa). 

Finally, this early stage of litigation is the ideal point to consolidate the cases. 

C. Defendants Request That This Court Enter An Order Staying Any 

Further Proceedings In This Matter Pending Resolution Of The 

Present Motion. 

“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 

control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 

counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). An 

issuance of a stay pending resolution of this preliminary issue will not unduly prejudice either 

party. Further, it makes sense because if this matter is transferred, the Illinois claim can be 

consolidated with the Hightower complaint. Therefore, in the interest of efficiency and the 

preservation of resources, Defendants respectfully request this Court stay this Gunn action until 

it determines the threshold issue pending in the instant Motion. See, e.g., Espey & Assocs., Inc. 

v. Principal Mfg. Corp., No. 1:08-cv-2117, 2009 WL 112781, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 15, 2009) 

(issuing a stay when it deferred resolution of the first-to-file issue to the first-filed court because 

“a stay pending resolution of this preliminary issue does not typically work prejudice sufficient 

to override” the interests weighing in favor of deferring resolution to the first-filed court); Glazer 

v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 1:08-cv-1624, 2008 WL 4534133, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 6, 2008) 

Case: 1:12-cv-00743 Document #: 17 Filed: 03/28/12 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:46
- 13 - 

(entering an order staying proceedings pending resolution of motion to transfer before MDL 

panel). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Under the first-to-file rule, this case should be transferred to the Central District of 

California where the overtime claims of Chase Personal Bankers are already proceeding in the 

consolidated Hightower action. The parties, putative classes, and allegations in this case overlap 

substantially (and are subsumed by) those in Hightower, such that judicial efficiency strongly 

favors transfer and consolidation with Hightower, as has been done in six other cases. Further, 

this Court should stay this action pending resolution of the instant Motion. 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request this Court transfer this matter 

to the Central District of California and stay the proceedings until that time. 

Date: March 28, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. and JPMORGAN 

CHASE BANK, N.A. 

 /s/ Kirsten A. Milton 

 

Sari M. Alamuddin (ARDC # 06215689) 

Kirsten A. Milton (ARDC # 06286124) 

Attorneys for Defendants 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

77 West Wacker Drive, Fifth Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Telephone: (312) 324-1000 

Fax: (312) 324-1001 

E-mail: salamuddin@morganlewis.com 

 kmilton@morganlewis.com 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-00743 Document #: 17 Filed: 03/28/12 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:47
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Kirsten A. Milton, an attorney, hereby certify that, on March 28, 2012, I electronically 

filed the foregoing Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue to California and to Stay the 

Proceedings Pending Resolution of this Motion with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF 

system which will send notification of such filing to the following: 

 David Harrison at nycotlaw@gmail.com 

 Denise Andrea Schulman at denise@jhllp.com 

 Nicholas P. Iavarone at niavarone@iavaronefirm.com 

 

and via U.S. mail on the following: 

 Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum 

 Joseph & Herzfeld LLP 

 233 Broadway, 5th Floor 

 New York, NY 10279 

 

 

/s/ Kirsten A. Milton 

 One of Defendants’ Attorneys 

Case: 1:12-cv-00743 Document #: 17 Filed: 03/28/12 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:48