Preview
JACK SHOLKOFF, CA Bar No. 145097 F L E
S.
jack.sholkoff@ogletree.com
9
SUPERtOR c A URT 0F ALIFORNIA
COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDiNo
MELIS ATALAY, CA Bar No. 301373 SAN BERNARmm DISTRICT
melis.atalay@ogletree.com
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & AUG 0 4 2022
STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone:
Facsimile:
213-239-9800
213—239-9045
BY
¢ w,
AL IE
aim
CERVANTES. DEPUTY
Attorneys for Defendant
OQOONON
JELD-WEN, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
11
12 ARIS GURERRO and ASHDEN RUSSELL, Case N0. CIV-SB-21 25846
individually, and 0n behalf of other aggrieved
13 employees pursuant to the California Private REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S
Attorneys General Act; MOTION TO STAY
14
Plaintiffs, Date: August 10, 2022
15 Time: 8:30 a.m.
VS. Place: Dept. S-26
16 Judge: Hon. David Cohn
JELD-WEN, INC., a Delaware corporation; and [Assigned for all purposes]
17 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive
18 Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY
I. INTRODUCTION
It is black letter law that, “when a federal action has been filed covering the same subject
matter as is involved in a California action,” the California court has substantial discretion to stay
the state court action. Farmland Irrigation C0. v. Dopplmaier, 48 Cal.2d 208, 215 (1 957).
Here, defendant JELD—WEN, Inc. (“Defendant” 0r “JELD-WEN”) has asserted a compelling
need for the Court to issue a stay. The following facts are beyond dispute:
(1) Plaintiffs’ federal action (the “Rivera Class Action”)1 and this separate state action (the
“Guerrero PAGA Action”) involve the same subject matter, overlapping time periods, mostly
identical Parties, and the same questions 0f fact and law;
10 (2) Approximately three months before the instant Guerrero PAGA Action was initiated,
11 Plaintiffs’ counsel filed yet another PAGA action against JELD-WEN (with the named plaintiffs
12 being some of the same individuals who are also named plaintiffs in the Rivera Class Action along
13 with Plaintiffs here) alleging the exact same wrongs, seeking the exact same remedies, and 0n behalf
14 0f the exact same group of employees that are at issue here (the “Rivera PAGA Action”)? The San
15 Diego Superior Court gm JELD-WEN’s motion t0 stay pending the Rivera Class Action in its
16 entirety 0n April 15, 2022 on identical grounds that exist here. (RJN, Exh. E). In relevant part, the
17 Court reasoned that allowing both actions to proceed simultaneously could was “highly prejudicial”
18 t0 JELD-WEN, created “a risk of conflicting and inconsistent rulings”:
19 (3) There is yet another PAGA and putative class action (the “Nieto” Action)3 that involves
20 an overlapping population and identical claims, including Cal. Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204,
21 210, 226(a), 510, 558, 1174, 1174.5, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198. The Nieto PAGA Action was recently
22 resolved 0n a representative basis against JELD—WEN and a company that it acquired, American
23
Plaintiffs Aris Guerrero and Ashden Russell (along with three other plaintiffs, Patrick Rivera Jr.,
1
24
Christopher Gonzalez, and Jesse Ramos) filed a wage-and-hour putative class action against JELD—
25
WEN on behalf of “all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who” have
worked for JELD-WEN since August 9, 2017. Rivera et al. v. JELD— WEN, Ina, Southern District
0f California, Case N0. 3:21-cv-01816 (the “Rivera Class Action”).
26 2
Rivera et al. v. JELD- WEN, Ina, San Diego County Sup. Ct., Case No. 37-2021-00025920-CU-
OE-CTL (the “Rivera PAGA Action”)
27 3
Jesus Nieto et al. v. American Building Supply, Inc., et al., Sacramento County Superior
CourtCase No. 34-2019-00259025. American Building Supply was merged into JELD-WEN in a
28
single-step merger as of December 3 1 2020. ,
2
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY
Preview
JACK SHOLKOFF, CA Bar No. 145097 F L E S. jack.sholkoff@ogletree.com 9 SUPERtOR c A URT 0F ALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDiNo MELIS ATALAY, CA Bar No. 301373 SAN BERNARmm DISTRICT melis.atalay@ogletree.com OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & AUG 0 4 2022 STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: Facsimile: 213-239-9800 213—239-9045 BY ¢ w, AL IE aim CERVANTES. DEPUTY Attorneys for Defendant OQOONON JELD-WEN, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 11 12 ARIS GURERRO and ASHDEN RUSSELL, Case N0. CIV-SB-21 25846 individually, and 0n behalf of other aggrieved 13 employees pursuant to the California Private REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S Attorneys General Act; MOTION TO STAY 14 Plaintiffs, Date: August 10, 2022 15 Time: 8:30 a.m. VS. Place: Dept. S-26 16 Judge: Hon. David Cohn JELD-WEN, INC., a Delaware corporation; and [Assigned for all purposes] 17 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY I. INTRODUCTION It is black letter law that, “when a federal action has been filed covering the same subject matter as is involved in a California action,” the California court has substantial discretion to stay the state court action. Farmland Irrigation C0. v. Dopplmaier, 48 Cal.2d 208, 215 (1 957). Here, defendant JELD—WEN, Inc. (“Defendant” 0r “JELD-WEN”) has asserted a compelling need for the Court to issue a stay. The following facts are beyond dispute: (1) Plaintiffs’ federal action (the “Rivera Class Action”)1 and this separate state action (the “Guerrero PAGA Action”) involve the same subject matter, overlapping time periods, mostly identical Parties, and the same questions 0f fact and law; 10 (2) Approximately three months before the instant Guerrero PAGA Action was initiated, 11 Plaintiffs’ counsel filed yet another PAGA action against JELD-WEN (with the named plaintiffs 12 being some of the same individuals who are also named plaintiffs in the Rivera Class Action along 13 with Plaintiffs here) alleging the exact same wrongs, seeking the exact same remedies, and 0n behalf 14 0f the exact same group of employees that are at issue here (the “Rivera PAGA Action”)? The San 15 Diego Superior Court gm JELD-WEN’s motion t0 stay pending the Rivera Class Action in its 16 entirety 0n April 15, 2022 on identical grounds that exist here. (RJN, Exh. E). In relevant part, the 17 Court reasoned that allowing both actions to proceed simultaneously could was “highly prejudicial” 18 t0 JELD-WEN, created “a risk of conflicting and inconsistent rulings”: 19 (3) There is yet another PAGA and putative class action (the “Nieto” Action)3 that involves 20 an overlapping population and identical claims, including Cal. Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 21 210, 226(a), 510, 558, 1174, 1174.5, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198. The Nieto PAGA Action was recently 22 resolved 0n a representative basis against JELD—WEN and a company that it acquired, American 23 Plaintiffs Aris Guerrero and Ashden Russell (along with three other plaintiffs, Patrick Rivera Jr., 1 24 Christopher Gonzalez, and Jesse Ramos) filed a wage-and-hour putative class action against JELD— 25 WEN on behalf of “all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who” have worked for JELD-WEN since August 9, 2017. Rivera et al. v. JELD— WEN, Ina, Southern District 0f California, Case N0. 3:21-cv-01816 (the “Rivera Class Action”). 26 2 Rivera et al. v. JELD- WEN, Ina, San Diego County Sup. Ct., Case No. 37-2021-00025920-CU- OE-CTL (the “Rivera PAGA Action”) 27 3 Jesus Nieto et al. v. American Building Supply, Inc., et al., Sacramento County Superior CourtCase No. 34-2019-00259025. American Building Supply was merged into JELD-WEN in a 28 single-step merger as of December 3 1 2020. , 2 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY