Preview
GREGORY ISKANDER, Bar No. 200215
giskander@littler.com
MICHAEL NELSON, Bar N0. 2872 1 3
mwnelson@littler.com ELECTRONICALLY FILED
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
1255 Treat BlVd., Suite 600 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
Telephone: 925.932.2468 3/13/2024 7:31 PM
Fax No.: 925.946.9809
By: Kylie Meneses, DEPUTY
Attorneys for Defendants
MANPOWER US INC. AND
KUEHNE + NAGEL, INC.
MATTHEW C. SGNILEK, Bar No. 235299
O'HAGAN MEYER
4695 MacArthur Court, Suite 210
Newport Beach, CA 92660
10 Telephone: 949.942.8500
Fax No.: 949.942.8510
11
Attorneys for Defendant
12 KUEHNE + NAGEL, INC.
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
15
16
TROY CROSSLEY, 0n Behalf 0f the State 0f Case No. CIVSB2325323
17 California and Aggrieved Employees,
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION
18 Plaintiff, AND MOTION TO STAY
19 V.
ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
JUDGE DAVID E. DRISCOLL
20 MANPOWER U.S., INC., KUEHNE + NAGEL,
INC, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Date: May 21, 2024
21 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Defendants. Dept: S22
22
Trial Date: None Set
23 Complaint Filed: April 20, 2021
24
25
26
27
LITTLER 28
MENDELSON, P.C.
4874—3262-8395.2 / 0962 14— 1 030
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard
Suite 600 Case No. CIVSB2325323
Walnut Creek, CA
94597 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY
925.932.2468
TO PLAINTIFF TROY CROSSLEY AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 21, 2024, at 8:30 a.m., 0r as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard, in Department S22 of the San Bernardino County Superior Court, located at 247
West Third Street, San Bernardino, California 92415, before the Honorable David E. Driscoll,
Defendants Manpower U.S., Inc. and Kuehne + Nagel, Inc. (“Defendants”) Will move and hereby do
move the Court t0 issue a stay of Plaintiff Troy Crossley’s Complaint For Enforcement Under The
Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).
Shortly after filing this action, Plaintiff filed a putative class and collective action in federal
court (“Crossley II”), based upon the same alleged Labor Code Violations that provide the claimed
10 basis for Plaintiff’ s PAGA claims in this action. In Crossley II, Plaintiff admitted that his claims were
11 subj ect t0 an enforceable Arbitration Agreement and stipulated to arbitrate his individual claims and
12 t0 dismiss his putative class and collective claims Without prejudice. The federal district court ordered
13 Plaintiff’s individual claims t0 arbitration pursuant t0 the parties’ stipulation and the arbitration
14 agreement, and the arbitration has not yet been completed.
15 The PAGA claims for civil penalties asserted in this matter, Which are premised 0n the same
16 alleged Labor Code Violations as alleged in the claims ordered t0 arbitration in Crossley II, should be
17 stayed pending arbitration in Crossley II. Plaintiff” s attempt t0 simultaneously litigate the same factual
18 and legal matters in both forums will be unnecessarily burdensome and will result in duplication of
19 efforts and wasted resources by both this Court and the parties. Likewise, simultaneous litigation 0f
20 these matters risks conflicting rulings in the two matters.
21 Accordingly, these claims should be stayed pending arbitration, in particular because the
22 outcome 0f arbitration Will establish Whether Plaintiff is aggrieved employee and Whether he has
23 standing to bring these claims. Adolph v. Uber Techs., Ina, 14 Cal. 5th 1104 (2023) (confirming that
24 an arbitrator’s findings can establish whether the employee is an aggrieved employee and, accordingly,
25 Whether the employee has standing for purposes 0f PAGA claims). Furthermore, this result is
26 compelled by both the Federal and California Arbitration Acts, which require that a stay shall issue
27 where overlapping claims are at issue in both litigation and arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 3; Cal. Code of CiV.
28 Proc. § 128 1 .4. Indeed, the Arbitration Agreement itself expressly provides for a stay of claims outside
LITTLER MENDELSON, 4874—3262—83952 / 096214—1030
P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard 2 Case No. CIVSB2325323
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY
Preview
GREGORY ISKANDER, Bar No. 200215 giskander@littler.com MICHAEL NELSON, Bar N0. 2872 1 3 mwnelson@littler.com ELECTRONICALLY FILED LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 1255 Treat BlVd., Suite 600 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Walnut Creek, CA 94597 SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT Telephone: 925.932.2468 3/13/2024 7:31 PM Fax No.: 925.946.9809 By: Kylie Meneses, DEPUTY Attorneys for Defendants MANPOWER US INC. AND KUEHNE + NAGEL, INC. MATTHEW C. SGNILEK, Bar No. 235299 O'HAGAN MEYER 4695 MacArthur Court, Suite 210 Newport Beach, CA 92660 10 Telephone: 949.942.8500 Fax No.: 949.942.8510 11 Attorneys for Defendant 12 KUEHNE + NAGEL, INC. 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 15 16 TROY CROSSLEY, 0n Behalf 0f the State 0f Case No. CIVSB2325323 17 California and Aggrieved Employees, DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION 18 Plaintiff, AND MOTION TO STAY 19 V. ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO JUDGE DAVID E. DRISCOLL 20 MANPOWER U.S., INC., KUEHNE + NAGEL, INC, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Date: May 21, 2024 21 Time: 8:30 a.m. Defendants. Dept: S22 22 Trial Date: None Set 23 Complaint Filed: April 20, 2021 24 25 26 27 LITTLER 28 MENDELSON, P.C. 4874—3262-8395.2 / 0962 14— 1 030 Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard Suite 600 Case No. CIVSB2325323 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY 925.932.2468 TO PLAINTIFF TROY CROSSLEY AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 21, 2024, at 8:30 a.m., 0r as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department S22 of the San Bernardino County Superior Court, located at 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, California 92415, before the Honorable David E. Driscoll, Defendants Manpower U.S., Inc. and Kuehne + Nagel, Inc. (“Defendants”) Will move and hereby do move the Court t0 issue a stay of Plaintiff Troy Crossley’s Complaint For Enforcement Under The Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). Shortly after filing this action, Plaintiff filed a putative class and collective action in federal court (“Crossley II”), based upon the same alleged Labor Code Violations that provide the claimed 10 basis for Plaintiff’ s PAGA claims in this action. In Crossley II, Plaintiff admitted that his claims were 11 subj ect t0 an enforceable Arbitration Agreement and stipulated to arbitrate his individual claims and 12 t0 dismiss his putative class and collective claims Without prejudice. The federal district court ordered 13 Plaintiff’s individual claims t0 arbitration pursuant t0 the parties’ stipulation and the arbitration 14 agreement, and the arbitration has not yet been completed. 15 The PAGA claims for civil penalties asserted in this matter, Which are premised 0n the same 16 alleged Labor Code Violations as alleged in the claims ordered t0 arbitration in Crossley II, should be 17 stayed pending arbitration in Crossley II. Plaintiff” s attempt t0 simultaneously litigate the same factual 18 and legal matters in both forums will be unnecessarily burdensome and will result in duplication of 19 efforts and wasted resources by both this Court and the parties. Likewise, simultaneous litigation 0f 20 these matters risks conflicting rulings in the two matters. 21 Accordingly, these claims should be stayed pending arbitration, in particular because the 22 outcome 0f arbitration Will establish Whether Plaintiff is aggrieved employee and Whether he has 23 standing to bring these claims. Adolph v. Uber Techs., Ina, 14 Cal. 5th 1104 (2023) (confirming that 24 an arbitrator’s findings can establish whether the employee is an aggrieved employee and, accordingly, 25 Whether the employee has standing for purposes 0f PAGA claims). Furthermore, this result is 26 compelled by both the Federal and California Arbitration Acts, which require that a stay shall issue 27 where overlapping claims are at issue in both litigation and arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 3; Cal. Code of CiV. 28 Proc. § 128 1 .4. Indeed, the Arbitration Agreement itself expressly provides for a stay of claims outside LITTLER MENDELSON, 4874—3262—83952 / 096214—1030 P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard 2 Case No. CIVSB2325323 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY