1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 WORKFORCE DEFENSE LEAGUE, No. 2:22-cv-00503-JAM-DB 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY 11 CLAYCO, INC.; and UNITED CONTRACTOR SERVICES, LLC, 12 Defendants. 13 14 Clayco, Inc. and United Contractor Services, LLC 15 (“Defendants”) petition the Court to stay Workforce Defense 16 League’s (“Plaintiff”) claim pending the completion of the 17 California Labor Commissioner’s Bureau of Field Enforcement 18 (“BOFE”) investigation of Defendants’ alleged conduct underlying 19 the instant case. See Mot. to Stay (“Mot.”), ECF No. 42. 20 Defendants contend that a stay would preserve judicial resources 21 and avoid inconsistent findings between the Court and BOFE. Id. 22 at 5. Plaintiff opposes the motion. See Opp’n, ECF No. 44. 23 Defendants replied. See Reply, ECF No. 45. 24 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 25 Defendants’ motion.1 26

27 1This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 28 for July 11, 2023. 1 I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 As the facts are already known to the parties, the Court 3 repeats them only as necessary to explain its decision. 4 Plaintiff is a labor management cooperation committee that 5 has brought this suit on behalf of Wage Claimants (“Claimants”) 6 against Defendants, alleging that Defendants did not pay 7 Claimants for all hours worked, overtime wages, or premiums for 8 missed rest breaks in the construction of an Amazon Warehouse in 9 Tracy, California. See generally Second Amended Complaint 10 (“SAC”), ECF No. 21. On January 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed its 11 complaint in state court; the case was removed to this Court one 12 month later. See Compl., Exhibit 2 to Notice of Removal, ECF 13 No. 1; Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. A few weeks later, 14 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”), to which 15 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss; the Court granted, in part, 16 and denied, in part, the motion with leave to amend. See FAC, 17 ECF No. 10, Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 11; Order, ECF No. 20. 18 Several weeks later, Plaintiff filed the SAC, to which Defendants 19 filed a motion to strike portions of the SAC. See SAC, Mot. to 20 Dismiss, ECF No. 26. On January 27, 2023, the Court issued an 21 order granting, in part, and denying, in part, Defendants’ 22 motion. See Order, ECF No. 31. A couple of weeks later, 23 Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 24 order, which the Court denied for lack of newly discovered 25 evidence, clear error, or intervening change in the controlling 26 law. See Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF No. 32, Order, ECF 27 No. 37. 28 /// 1 On September 20, 2022, a couple of weeks after the filing of 2 the SAC, BOFE notified Defendants of its intent to investigate 3 Defendants for potential Labor Code violations related to the 4 Tracy project. Mot. at 6. Defendants are currently cooperating 5 with BOFE’s investigation, including requests for relevant 6 documents and information. Id. On April 20, 2023, Defendants’ 7 counsel alleged that they contacted Plaintiff’s counsel 8 requesting a stipulation to stay the matter pending the outcome 9 of BOFE’s investigation. Mot. at 7. Plaintiff’s counsel notified 10 Defendants that they would not agree to stay the instant case. 11 On May 17, 2023, Defendants filed the operative motion to stay. 12 13 II. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES 14 A. Judicial Notice 15 Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of one 16 exhibit: BOFE’s 2020-21 Fiscal Year Report to the California 17 Legislature. See Request for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 43. The 18 exhibit constitutes a government record and is, therefore, a 19 proper subject for judicial notice. Anderson v. Holder,

, 1094 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2012); Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. 21 Ass’n.,

(9th Cir. 2010). 22 23 III. OPINION 24 A. Legal Standard 25 “A district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings 26 as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton 27 v. Jones,

(1997). A court must consider 28 several factors when deciding whether to exercise that discretion 1 to issue a stay:(1) the “possible damage which might result from 2 granting a stay;” (2) the “hardship or inequity which a party 3 might suffer in being required to go forward;” and (3) the 4 “orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying 5 or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which 6 could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 7

(9th Cir. 1962). 8 The proponent of a stay bears the burden of showing that 9 these factors, on balance, warrant a stay. Clinton,

708. The moving party “must make out a clear case of hardship or 11 inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair 12 possibility that the stay” will damage an interested party. 13 Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

(1936). 14 B. Analysis 15 1. Landis Factors 16 a. Possible Damage 17 The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently 18 allege that it or Claimants will incur damages if the Court 19 grants a stay. Defendants’ claim that the BOFE investigation is 20 specifically assessing whether damages, premiums, or statutory 21 penalties should be set against Defendants for their alleged 22 conduct during the Tracy project, all of which collectively cover 23 the relief that Plaintiff is seeking in the instant case. Mot. 24 at 8. Even if the stay would result in a delay in Claimants’ 25 receipt of their damages, Defendants correctly note that such a 26 delay is not afforded much weight. I.K. ex rel. E.K. v. Sylvan 27 Union Sch. Dist.,

(E.D. Cal. 2010). 28 Defendants further note that the Tracy project has been completed 1 so there is no risk of further damages. Mot. at 9. 2 Plaintiff contends that Claimants have waited three years 3 for their compensation and that the damages in this case are 4 distinct; at issue in the instant case are “unpaid wages” and 5 public policy favors prompt payment of these wages to employees. 6 Opp’n at 3-4. Plaintiff then claims that a stay would be harmful 7 to Plaintiff’s discovery efforts.

The Court finds that 8 (1) Plaintiff has failed to put forth any controlling or 9 persuasive authority that would permit the Court to find that 10 unpaid wages are distinct when considering the propriety of a 11 stay; and (2) Plaintiff’s contention that its discovery efforts 12 will be impeded is conclusory and without merit; thus, Plaintiff 13 has failed to sufficiently allege that it will suffer damage if 14 the Court grants a stay. 15 b. Hardship or Inequity 16 Landis states that “if there is even a fair possibility” 17 that a stay will damage a relevant party, the party seeking the 18 stay “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity” in 19 being required to go forward with the action.

. 20 The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently 21 demonstrate that there is a fair possibility it or Claimants will 22 suffer damage if the Court grants a stay in the instant case. On 23 the other hand, the Court acknowledges Defendants’ contention 24 that denial of a stay would subject Defendants to litigating the 25 allegations of the instant case in two concurrent forums, both in 26 the Court and in the BOFE investigation. Mot. at 9. 27 Nevertheless, the Court finds that this factor does not weigh 28 strongly in favor of either party. 1 c. Orderly Course of Justice 2 The Court finds that granting a stay would promote the 3 orderly court of justice. Defendants claim that the BOFE 4 investigation spans the totality of potential Labor Code 5 violations and that, if any claims remain, the Court can address 6 them at the investigation’s conclusion. Mot. at 9. Plaintiff 7 responds that the Court has already narrowed the legal issues in 8 the instant case and that there is nothing for the BOFE to 9 contribute, noting that (1) Defendants have not shared all the 10 evidence from the BOFE proceedings with Plaintiff and (2) the 11 BOFE investigation is still in its initial stages and has no set 12 conclusion. Opp’n at 3-4. Plaintiff further claims that it and 13 Claimants can choose to opt out of either proceeding if it 14 appears that there is possibility of double recovery of damages. 15 Id. at 5. 16 The Court agrees with Defendants and finds that there is 17 sufficient overlap between the allegations and relief sought in 18 the instant case and the BOFE investigation that “waiting for one 19 to be resolved would work to simplify issues in the other” and 20 “preserve judicial resources.” United States v. California, No. 21 218CV00490JAMKJN,

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 22 2018); see also Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 23

(9th Cir. 1979) (finding that a district court 24 may enter a stay pending resolution of independent judicial, 25 administrative, or arbitration proceedings which bear upon the 26 case and that such proceedings do not need to be “controlling of 27 the action before the court.”). 28 /// eee en ene ee EOE EO

1 2, Primary Jurisdiction 2 Because the Court finds that a stay is appropriate under 3 | Landis, it does not discuss the merits of Defendants’ primary 4 jurisdiction doctrine argument. 5 6 Iv. ORDER 7 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS 8 Defendants’ motion. The proceedings between Plaintiff and 9 Defendants will be STAYED pending the completion of the 10 California Labor Commissioner’s Bureau of Field Enforcement 11 (“BOFE”) investigation of Defendants’ conduct at the Tracy Amazon 12 Warehouse. Within ten days of the completion of the BOFE 13 investigation, the parties shall file a joint status report with 14 the Court. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: August 21, 2023 17 : cp, JOHN A. MENDEZ 19 SENIOR UNITED*STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28