1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 JESSICA WINGO, Case No. 21-cv-09000-PJH 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. STAY

10 H&M HENNES & MAURITZ, L.P., Re: Dkt. Nos. 13, 13-2 11 Defendant. 12

13 Defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay came on for hearing 14 before this court on January 27, 2022. Plaintiff appeared through her counsel, Deanna 15 Leifer. Defendant appeared through its counsel, Andrew Satenberg. Having read the 16 papers filed by the parties and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant 17 legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion 18 to stay for the following reasons. 19 This matter is one of two class action lawsuits brought against defendant for 20 alleged violations of California wage-and-hour laws. The other matter in question is 21 Gonzalez v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz L.P. et al, Case No. 21-cv-0161 (“Gonzalez”), which 22 is proceeding before the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California. Rather 23 than litigate two similar cases, defendant seeks to dismiss, or stay, this lawsuit pursuant 24 to the first-to-file rule. Dkt. 13. 25 The first-to-file rule “may be invoked when a complaint involving the same parties 26 and issues has already been filed in another district.” Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Products, 27 Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). A court 1 issues” in determining whether to apply the first-to-file rule. Kohn Law Grp., Inc. v. Auto 2 Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2015). 3 All three considerations favor application of the first-to-file rule in this instance. 4 First, it is undisputed that Gonzalez was filed about eight weeks before this lawsuit. 5 Second, the broad proposed class in Gonzalez encompasses the narrower proposed 6 class in this lawsuit. Third, both lawsuits raise the same state labor law claims. 7 Where the first-to-file rule applies, the court “has discretion to transfer, stay, or 8 dismiss the second case in the interest of efficiency and judicial economy.” Cedars-Sinai 9 Med. Ctr. v. Shalala,

(9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal under the “first-to-file 10 rule is improper if it would prejudice the plaintiff in the second-filed case from presenting 11 its claims in either the first-filed case or a later case.” Dolores Press, Inc. v. Robinson, 12

, 453–54 (9th Cir. 2019). Because of the potential for prejudice against 13 plaintiff, the court finds dismissal an inappropriate remedy here. 14 For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby GRANTS defendant’s alternative 15 motion to stay and GRANTS defendant’s request for judicial notice (Dkt. 13-2). 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: January 28, 2022 18 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 19 United States District Judge

20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27