1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SERGIO CORTES, Case No. 2:25-cv-01276-FLA (JDEx)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

13 v. THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

TRANSFERRED TO THE EASTERN

14 DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF

15 NORTH AMERICA, LLC., et al., 16 Defendants. 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 On December 26, 2023, plaintiff Juan Lopez (“Lopez”) filed a class action 3 lawsuit in San Joaquin County Superior Court (the “Lopez action”) against Allied 4 Waste Services of North America, LLC (“Allied Waste”) and Republic Services, Inc. 5 Juan Lopez v. Allied Waste Services of North America, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv- 6 00822-TLN (E.D. Cal.), Dkt. 1 at 3.1 Lopez alleges numerous violations of 7 California’s Labor Code sections resulting from the named defendants’ alleged failure 8 to pay wages owed, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to provide 9 accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages owed upon termination, as 10 well as violation of section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code 11 (“UCL”). Id. On February 27, 2024, Lopez amended his Complaint to add a cause of 12 action for civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act. Id. at 4. On 13 March 15, 2024, defendants Allied Waste and Republic Services, Inc. removed the 14 Lopez action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 15 alleging diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Id. at 2. 16 On December 23, 2024, Plaintiff Sergio Cortes (“Plaintiff”) filed a substantially 17 similar class action complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court against one of 18 the same defendants, Allied Waste, also alleging California Labor Code and UCL 19 violations against Allied Waste. Dkt. 1-1 at 10–27. On February 13, 2025, Allied 20 Waste (collectively with Plaintiff, the “Parties”) removed the subject action to this 21 court, alleging diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Dkt. 1. 22 “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a 23 district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it 24 might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have 25 consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). A district court may “transfer a case sua sponte 26

27 1 The court cites documents by the page numbers added by the court’s CM/ECF 28 System, rather than any page numbers listed in documents natively. 1 under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, as codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), so 2 long as the parties are first given the opportunity to present their views on the issue.” 3 Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). 4 Because Lopez filed a duplicative action that is pending currently before the 5 Eastern District of California, prior to Plaintiff filing the subject action before this 6 court, the court ORDERS the Parties to Show Cause (“OSC”) in writing, within 7 fourteen (14) days of this Order, why the action should not be deemed related to the 8 Lopez action and transferred to the Eastern District of California. The Parties may file 9 one brief per side, which shall not exceed 15 pages per brief. Failure to respond 10 timely shall result in the transfer of this action without further notice from the court. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: December 29, 2025 ______________________________

FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA

15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28