On August 22, 2022 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Anzora, Joseph,
and
Does 1 Through 100, Inclusive,
Inland Behavioral And Health Services, Inc.,
for Complex Civil Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
\r \a
TENTATIVE RULINGS svggnm’égul ED
ALlro
SANNBERNARDN
80ng “E‘sfigm
CT r1
7. Anzora v. Inland Behavioral and Health Services, Inc. JUL 2 8
202 3
CIVSBZZ18375
Motion to Stay
Tentative Ruling:
BY
J
A
flAL ESI
tPUTy
Bibiyan Law Group has filed four wage and hour cases against defendant?
The case (Franco—CIVSBZ1 18579) is a class action, presently stayed pending
first
resolution of an appeal from an order denying a motion to compel arbitration.
The second case (Franco, Alfaro—CIVSBZ128930), the third (Acuna—CIVSBZZOO439),
and the fourth (Anzora—CIV2218375) are all PAGA cases. The three PAGA cases are so
similar is mysterious why counsel filed separate cases. The named plaintiffs in each case
it
would be aggrieved employees addressed by the other two cases. This case is subsumed
entirely by the first PAGA case, Franco, A/faro.
Either the three PAGA cases
should be consolidated as one or the second and third
PAGA cases should be stayed. The court is inclined: Franco, Alfaro, Acuna, and Anzora.
Alternatively, the Franco, Alfaro PAGA case can proceed while Acuna and Anzora would be
stayed. As a practical matter, the result or consolidation or stay is the same because Bibiyan
Law Group represents all the named plaintiffs and all the issues and aggrieved employees
overlap. A judgment in one would be res judicata as to the others.
The Franco class action, however, should remain separate, for at least four reasons: (1)
it involves claims for damages rather than penalties, (2) it potentially involves a class, (3) it
extends back farther in time than the PAGA cases, and (4) is presently stayed?
2
The court takes judicial notice of the complaints in each case. The other requests for judicial notice are
denied on grounds of relevance.
‘
Plaintiffs opposition focused primarily on the class action. but the motion is brought due to the earlier filed
PAGA cases, not to the class action. The court considers the class action to be irrelevant.
Page 2 CV526072823
Document Filed Date
July 28, 2023
Case Filing Date
August 22, 2022
Category
Complex Civil Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
\r \a TENTATIVE RULINGS svggnm’égul ED ALlro SANNBERNARDN 80ng “E‘sfigm CT r1 7. Anzora v. Inland Behavioral and Health Services, Inc. JUL 2 8 202 3 CIVSBZZ18375 Motion to Stay Tentative Ruling: BY J A flAL ESI tPUTy Bibiyan Law Group has filed four wage and hour cases against defendant? The case (Franco—CIVSBZ1 18579) is a class action, presently stayed pending first resolution of an appeal from an order denying a motion to compel arbitration. The second case (Franco, Alfaro—CIVSBZ128930), the third (Acuna—CIVSBZZOO439), and the fourth (Anzora—CIV2218375) are all PAGA cases. The three PAGA cases are so similar is mysterious why counsel filed separate cases. The named plaintiffs in each case it would be aggrieved employees addressed by the other two cases. This case is subsumed entirely by the first PAGA case, Franco, A/faro. Either the three PAGA cases should be consolidated as one or the second and third PAGA cases should be stayed. The court is inclined: Franco, Alfaro, Acuna, and Anzora. Alternatively, the Franco, Alfaro PAGA case can proceed while Acuna and Anzora would be stayed. As a practical matter, the result or consolidation or stay is the same because Bibiyan Law Group represents all the named plaintiffs and all the issues and aggrieved employees overlap. A judgment in one would be res judicata as to the others. The Franco class action, however, should remain separate, for at least four reasons: (1) it involves claims for damages rather than penalties, (2) it potentially involves a class, (3) it extends back farther in time than the PAGA cases, and (4) is presently stayed? 2 The court takes judicial notice of the complaints in each case. The other requests for judicial notice are denied on grounds of relevance. ‘ Plaintiffs opposition focused primarily on the class action. but the motion is brought due to the earlier filed PAGA cases, not to the class action. The court considers the class action to be irrelevant. Page 2 CV526072823