Defendant’s Motion for Order to Stay Proceedings
Defendant’s employees. Regardless of whether Defendant has waived its own objections to the discovery, the Court still has an obligation to consider the non-party employees’ privacy. To that end, the parties are ordered to complete a Belaire-West process, and Defendant is to provide its response within 30 days of completion. In the interests of justice, and given Defendant’s complete failure to provide discovery responses, Defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the Belaire-West process.
II. Sanctions
Plaintiff requests a total of $3,585 in fees and costs from Defendant. The request is granted in part. Defendant failed to submit to an authorized method of discovery without justification, so sanctions are required. However, the Court finds the fees claimed by Plaintiff excessive for unopposed form motions to compel absent responses (as opposed to a contested, more tailored motion to compel further responses). The Court finds a total of $3,000 to be appropriate. Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiff this amount as a sanction by no later than August 24, 2026.
9 Alvarez vs. Albertson’s LLC
2025-01486816
Defendant’s Motion for Order to Stay Proceedings
Defendant Albertson’s LLC moves to stay this case pending resolution of Alvarez v. Albertson’s LLC, C.D.Cal. No. 8:25-cv-00982-SRM-KES (the “Class Action”). The motion is GRANTED. In light of the stay, a status conference will be held on December 21, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. A joint status report shall be filed by December 14, 2026. Defendant’s unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED.
GROUNDS FOR RULING
I.
Background
This is a PAGA-only action involving the non-exempt distribution, fulfillment, and warehouse center employees of Defendant. On April 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Class Action in Orange County Superior Court, where it was assigned case number 25-01471926 and assigned to Judge Melzer in Department CX102. (RJN Ex. 1.)
Plaintiff then filed this separate PAGA action on May 30, 2025. (ROA 2.) Plaintiff is represented by the same counsel in both cases. Although this case and the Class Action arise from common underlying facts, Plaintiff failed to file a notice of related cases in this matter as required by CRC 3.300.
Defendant removed both the Class Action and this case to federal court. (RJN Ex. 2; ROA 17.) In federal court, Plaintiff moved to remand this case, while Defendant moved to consolidate it with the Class Action. The federal court granted Plaintiff’s motion to remand and dismissed Defendant’s motion to consolidate as moot. (ROA 22.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
From the Court’s review of the two complaints, every Labor Code section cited as a PAGA predicate in this action is alleged in the Class Action. Plaintiff suggests the putative class (consisting of distribution center employees) is narrower than the aggrieved employee group (consisting of distribution, fulfillment, and warehouse center employees), but it appears to the Court that these are essentially the same group. In any event, Plaintiff never explains the difference between distribution, fulfillment, and warehouse centers.
II. Discussion
“Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) Defendant argues a stay of this case pending resolution of the Class Action would promote judicial efficiency. The Court agrees.
There is a serious risk of conflicting rulings between the two cases. Plaintiff’s standing to sue as a PAGA plaintiff depends on his having suffered at least one of the Labor Code violations complained of. (See Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73.) If this case and the Class Action continue side-by-side, there could be simultaneous holdings by (1) the federal court that Plaintiff suffered none of the Labor Code violations he complains of, so his claims fail on the merits, and (2) this Court that Plaintiff has suffered Labor Code violations and thus has standing to sue under PAGA.
To avoid this problem, the better course is to stay the later-filed case (this one) in favor of the earlier-filed case (the Class Action) and see if there is anything left to litigate about Plaintiff’s PAGA standing when the Class Action concludes. Plaintiff contends it is “unanswered whether any federal ruling would have preclusive effect here” (Opp. at p. 12), but a finding that Plaintiff suffered no Labor Code violations in the Class Action would presumably bar PAGA standing in this case. (See Rocha v. U-Haul Co. of California (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 65, 78-82 (arbitrator’s finding that plaintiffs had not suffered § 1102.5 violation barred PAGA claim predicated on § 1102.5 violations).)
Plaintiff contends a stay would “increase the risk that witnesses leave, memories fade, or records become harder to locate” (Opp. at p. 11), so a stay is inappropriate. But any delay in resolving the PAGA claim compared to the class action is Plaintiff’s fault. He chose to file two separate suits predicated on the same Labor Code violations, and he chose not to file a notice of related cases as required by the Rules of Court. Had he amended his class action complaint as a matter of right to add a PAGA claim, the PAGA claim and the class claims would both be pending in a single action in federal court and proceeding on the same track. For these reasons, the Court exercises its discretion to find that a stay of this action pending resolution of the Class Action would accommodate the ends of justice and promote judicial efficiency.
10 Roe 26 A.B. vs. Anaheim Union High School District
2025-01503960
Gizem Gures Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record Slater Slater Schulman LLP moves to be relieved as counsel for Jane Roe 27 M.M., Jane Roe 33 B.G., and John Roe 34 R.P. The motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons set forth below. Additionally, the clerk is directed to seal the papers filed at the following