Sanchez v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc.

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 6 — 7 JOSE FRANCISCO SANCHEZ and Case No. 21-cv-00890-MMC JOSE ANTONIO REYES, — 8 — Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' v. MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE 10 ALTERNATIVE TO TRANSFER VENUE ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION 11 SERVICES, INC. and ROADRUNNER Re: Doc. No. 25 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, INC., — 12 — Defendants. — 13 — 14 Before the Court is defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Transfer 15 Venue,” filed May 11, 2021. Plaintiffs have filed opposition, to which defendants have 16 replied. Having read and considered the papers submitted in support of and in opposition 17 to the motion, the Court rules as follows.1 18 On May 12, 2020, Julian Garcia v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc. and 19 Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. was filed in state court, alleging, on behalf of 20 the named plaintiff and a putative class, claims against both defendants under California 21 Labor Code §§ 2802 and 2804 and California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et 22 seq. On October 5, 2020, the case was removed to this District. See Case No. 20-CV23 6918-MMC (hereinafter “Garcia”). 24 On February 4, 2021, the above-titled action (hereinafter “Sanchez”) was filed in 25 this District, alleging, as against the same two defendants, essentially the same claims as 26 asserted in Garcia, the only differences being the date on which the class period — 27 — 1 commences (April 1, 2016, in Garcia and May 1, 2016, in Sanchez) and one additional 2 || cause of action in Sanchez, namely, a claim under California Labor Code §§ 2698 et seq. 3 On February 10, 2021, defendants, relying on a forum-selection clause, moved to 4 || transfer Garcia to the Eastern District of Wisconsin and, on July 20, 2021, the motion was 5 || granted. 6 In light of the above, the Court finds, for the reasons set forth by defendants (see 7 || Mot. at 8:5-9:22), the instant action is subject to dismissal or transfer under the first-to-file 8 rule, see Kohn L. Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Mississippi, Inc., 787 F.3d 1237 , 1240-41 9 || (9th Cir. 2015) (listing requirements for application of first-to-file rule), and, in this 10 instance, the Court finds transfer is preferable, see Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prod., Inc., — 11 — 946 F.2d 622, 623 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding first-to-file rule “allows a district court to 12 transfer, stay, or dismiss” later-filed action).? 2 13 Accordingly, the motion is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the 0 14 || above-titled action is hereby ordered TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court 8 15 || for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Q 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Cc — 17 — 18 || Dated: July 27, 2021 ‘ . INE M. CHESNEY 19 United States District Judge — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — 25 ? Although plaintiffs state it is “likely” plaintiff Garcia will dismiss his case (see Opp. at 5:9), a review of the docket in Garcia reflects no dismissal has been filed to date and, — 26 — given that an answer has been filed therein, any such relief will require either a stipulation 27 || Or court order, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. In any event, if Garcia ultimately is dismissed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the parties will have the opportunity to set forth before 28 that Court their respective positions as to whether Sanchez should remain in that District.