Jacobs v. TransPak, Inc.

Before the Court is the Petition for Coordination filed by Petitioner Ricardo Villarreal Diaz. The petition seeks to coordinate five wage and hour actions brought by current and former employees against TransPak, Inc. The actions are currently pending in three separate superior courts, and the petition is unopposed. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS the petition for coordination.

I.

Background

A. Coordination Proceedings Petitioner Ricardo Villarreal Diaz filed the Petition for Coordination and Application for Immediate Stay on March 11, 2026. The Judicial Council assigned JCCP No. 5453, titled “TRANSPAK WAGE AND HOUR CASES,” on April 15, 2026. (JCC Letter, April 15, 2026.) The coordination motion judge was assigned by order dated April 28, 2026. (Notice of Order Assigning Coordination Motion Judge, filed May 5, 2026.) The Court set the coordination hearing and stayed all included actions pending that hearing by order dated May 21, 2026. (Notice and Order filed May 27, 2026, Ex. A.)

B. The Included Actions The petition seeks to coordinate the following five actions. (Petition at pp. 1–2; Memorandum at p. 8.)

1. Villarreal Diaz PAGA Action Villarreal Diaz v. TransPak, Inc. is PAGA representative action filed on December 12, 2025, in Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. 25CV159503. (Washington Decl., ¶¶ 3 –8, Ex. A–B.) Petitioner submitted a notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency on October 8, 2025, before filing his complaint in December. The complaint asserts nine Labor Code violations as a representative PAGA action and has not been deemed complex.

2. Jacobs Class Action Jacobs v. TransPak, Inc. is a class action filed on December 29, 2022, in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 22CV409235. (Washington Decl., ¶¶ 9–21, Ex. C–M.) Plaintiff Macie Jacobs alleges nine Labor Code violations, and the Court deemed the action complex on January 11, 2023. On June 26, 2025, the Court granted TransPak’s motion to compel arbitration, dismissed the class claims, and stayed the action pending arbitration of Jacobs’s individual claims. (Id. at ¶ 18, Ex. L.) Jacobs has demanded arbitration before the American Arbitration Association, with an arbitration hearing set for December 1–4, 2026. (Id. at ¶ 19, Ex. M.) A further case management conference is set for January 13, 2027. (Id. at ¶¶ 19–20, Ex. M.)

3. Velazquez PAGA Action Velazquez v. TransPak, Inc. is a PAGA representative action filed on August 11, 2023, in Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. 23CV040507. (Washington Decl., ¶¶ 22–40, Ex. N–Z, 1–4.) The Alameda court deemed the action non-complex on September 12, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 23, Ex. O.) The court denied TransPak’s motion to compel arbitration on February 4, 2025. (Id. at ¶ 36, Ex. 2.) TransPak filed a notice of appeal from that ruling on February 25, 2025. (Id. at ¶ 37, Ex. 3.) Trial is set for June 7, 2027. (Id. at ¶ 40.)

4. Viloria Class and PAGA Action Viloria v. TransPak, Inc. is a class and PAGA representative action filed on September 5, 2023, in San Joaquin Superior Court, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-9508. (Washington Decl., ¶¶ 41–50, Ex. 5–11.) The action is labeled complex, and an alternative dispute resolution hearing is set for April 23, 2026. (Id. at ¶¶ 44, 48, Ex. 8.)

5. Gomez Class and PAGA Action Gomez v. TransPak, Inc. is a class and PAGA representative action filed on February 20, 2024, in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Case No. 24CV431223. (Washington Decl., ¶¶ 51– 57, Ex. 12–16.) The action has been deemed complex. (Id. at ¶ 52, Ex. 13.)

II.

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rules 3.501 through 3.550 provide for the coordination of complex actions. Rule 3.400(a) defines a “complex case” as “an action that requires exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel.”

In deciding whether an action is a complex case under Rule 3.400(a), the court must consider, among other things, whether the action is likely to involve: (1) Numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve; (2) Management of a large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of documentary evidence; (3) Management of a large number of separately represented parties; (4) Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court; or (5) Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.400(b).)

“Coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites will promote the ends of justice taking into account” the following factors: “whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1 (“Section 404.1”); see also California Rules of Court, rule 3.521 [setting forth the requirements for a petition for coordination].)

The trial court exercises its discretion in weighing and balancing these factors to determine whether coordination best serves the ends of justice in a particular case. (Pesses v. Superior Court (Pacific Southwest Airlines) (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 117, 125-126; McGahn Med. Corp. v. Superior Court (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 804, 812.)

III.

Discussion

A. The Actions are Complex Petitioner first argues that the actions are complex and eligible for coordination. (Memorandum, pp. 20–22.) Three of the five actions have already been treated as complex by the courts in which they are pending. The remaining two actions are the Villarreal Diaz action, which has not been deemed complex, and the Velazquez action, which has been deemed noncomplex.

A prior complexity determination by a trial court does not bind the coordination motion judge. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400, 3.501(c).) Here, the Court finds that all the included actions are complex. Both the Villarreal Diaz and Velazquez actions are representative PAGA actions brought on behalf of numerous aggrieved employees, with the Velazquez action asserting nineteen Labor Code claims. These actions will require management of numerous witnesses and a substantial amount of documentary evidence. They also present interrelated arbitration and standing questions that have already been the subject of motion practice and an appeal. Accordingly, the Court finds that all five included actions are complex within the meaning of rule 3.400 and therefore eligible for coordination.

B. The Actions Should be Coordinated Petitioner contends that coordination is proper and will promote the ends of justice, pointing to the seven factors set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 404.1: (1) whether the common questions of fact or law predominates and is significant to the litigation; (2) the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and counsel; (3) the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; (4) the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; (5) the calendar of the courts; (6) the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and (7) the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.

The Court agrees that analysis under the pertinent factors supports coordination in this instance. All five actions arise from the same defendant’s wage and hour policies and practices. Common factual issues include TransPak’s timekeeping, meal and rest break policies, overtime calculations, and compensation practices. Common legal issues include Labor Code compliance, class certification standards, PAGA manageability and penalty calculations, and statute of limitations defenses.

The actions are pending in three counties before five different judges. Under such circumstances, duplicative discovery, motion practice, and potentially inconsistent rulings on identical issues are likely to occur in the absence of coordination.

The “relative development of the actions” factor is neutral in the coordination analysis. The actions are at varying stages: Jacobs is staying pending arbitration; Velazquez is the most developed and is subject to a pending appeal; Villarreal Diaz was filed relatively recently in December 2025. While the Jacobs action’s earlier arbitration motion was resolved by Court order, that procedural difference does not eliminate the factual and legal issues that are common across all the actions. Furthermore, the differing postures in the cases do not weigh against coordination here because the parties have already been litigating and attempting to resolve the actions on a coordinated basis. (See Washington Decl., ¶¶ 38, 55, Ex. 4, 16 [joint statements filed in the Velazquez and Gomez actions indicate that the parties in Jacobs, Velazquez, Viloria, and Gomez have agreed to global mediation with Hon.

Ronald Sabraw (Ret.)].)

In sum, the petition meets the criteria for coordination under Code of Civil Procedure section 404.1. The actions are sufficiently complex, and common questions predominate. Coordination will promote convenience, judicial economy, and ends of justice. Considerations potentially weighing against coordination (including the presence of an individual defendant in one action and the differing procedural postures) are outweighed by the substantial overlap in claims, parties, and discovery needs, and the significant risk of inconsistent rulings absent coordination.

Accordingly, the petition for coordination is GRANTED.

IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, the Court rules as follows.

1. The Court finds that each of the five included actions is complex. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.400.)

2. The Petition for Coordination is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 404.1, 404.3.)

3. The Court recommends the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, as the site of the coordination proceedings. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.530.)

4. The Court selects the Sixth Appellate District as the reviewing court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.505(a).)

5. The STAY of the included actions is CONTINUED pending assignment of a coordination trial judge. (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.515.)

6. Petitioner shall transmit a copy of this decision and order to the Chair of the Judicial Council and shall serve a copy on each appearing party and on the clerk of each court in which an included action is pending. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.511, 3.524.)

- oo0oo -

6