1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 DANIELA MELGOZA, on behalf of herself Case No. 3:22-cv-01756-LB and all others similarly situated, (Related Case No. 3:22-cv-00525-LB) 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 DISMISS AND CONSOLIDATING v. RELATED CASES 14 AEGIS SENIOR COMMUNITIES LLC Re: ECF No. 16 15 D/B/A AEGIS LIVING, 16 Defendant.

17 INTRODUCTION 18 This wage-and-hour employment class action, Daniela Melgoza v. Aegis Senior Communities, 19 LLC D/B/A Aegis Living, No. 22-cv-01756-LB, is related to an earlier-filed class action, Andrea 20 Salonga v. Aegis Senior Communities, LLC, No. 22-cv-00525-LB.1 The defendant is the same in 21 both actions. The defendant has moved to dismiss or stay the state-law claims in the Melgoza 22 action under the first-to-file rule.2 Alternatively, the defendant asked the court to consolidate the 23 two cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).3 24

25 1 Order – Salonga ECF No. 40. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF) in the Melgoza action; pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. 26 Citations to docket entries and documents from the Salonga action are identified as such, e.g., “Salonga ECF No. 1” refers to the first docket entry in the Salonga action. 27 2 Mot. – ECF No. 16 at 6, 10. 1 The plaintiff opposed dismissal under the first-to-file rule, in part, based on the possibility that 2 the court may have remanded the Salonga action back to state court.4 This argument is moot 3 because the court has denied the motion to remand.5 The plaintiff also argued that dismissal under 4 the first-to-file rule is unnecessary because the order relating the cases satisfied the efficiency 5 interest that the first-to-file rule addresses.6 Concerning the defendant’s consolidation proposal, 6 both named plaintiffs have stated that they do not oppose consolidation.7 7 The court denies the motion to dismiss and, instead, consolidates the two related cases because 8 (1) both cases involve similar questions of law and fact and (2) no party has opposed consolidation 9 or identified any prejudicial effect of consolidation. 10 11 STATEMENT 12 The Salonga action was removed to this court in late January 2022 and the Melgoza action was 13 filed in this court in March 2022.8 The plaintiffs in both cases have asserted the following state- 14 law claims: (1) California Labor Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197 (minimum wage); (2) 15 California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 1198 (overtime); (3) California Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512 16 (meal periods); (4) California Labor Code § 226.7 (rest breaks); (5) California Labor Code § 226 17 (accurate wage statements); (6) California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203 (wages due on 18 separation); and (7) California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. (unfair business 19 practices).9 There are, however, some differences between the complaints. 20 The Salonga action includes a claim for violating California Labor Code §§ 2800, 2802 21 (business-expense reimbursement) but the Melgoza plaintiff has not asserted such a claim.10 22 23 4 Opp’n – ECF No. 24 at 4–6. 24 5 Order – Salonga ECF No. 39. 25 6 Opp’n – ECF No. 24 at 2–3. 26 7 Pl.’s Statement – ECF No. 28 at 2; Pl.’s Statement – Salonga ECF No. 42 at 1–3. 8 Compl. – ECF No. 1; Notice of Removal – Salonga ECF No. 1. 27 9 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 13–26 (¶¶ 63–154); Compl. – Salonga ECF No. 1 at 32–42 (¶¶ 37–101). 1 Furthermore, the Melgoza plaintiff, unlike the Salonga plaintiff, has asserted claims under the 2 federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California Labor Code § 204 (failure to pay for all 3 hours worked).11 Despite the differences, both cases are pending in this court and the state-law 4 claims in the Melgoza action overlap with the state-law claims in the Salonga action. 5 Regarding the parties, the defendants are the same in both actions.12 The putative class in the 6 Salonga action includes “[a]ll California citizens currently or formerly employed by Defendants as 7 non-exempt employees in the State of California at any time between May 30, 2017 and the date 8 of class certification.”13 The putative class in the Melgoza action includes “[a]ll current and former 9 hourly, non-exempt employees employed by Defendant Aegis Senior Communities LLC d/b/a 10 Aegis Living in California any time starting four years prior to the filing of this Complaint until 11 resolution of this action” and the class period commences on March 18, 2018.14 Thus, the putative 12 class in the Melgoza action is subsumed within the putative Salonga class. 13 The parties in both cases have consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 14 636(c).15 The court held a hearing on May 26, 2022. 15 16 ANALYSIS 17 Rule 42 provides that the court may consolidate actions involving “a common question of law 18 or fact.” The court has broad discretion to consolidate cases under this rule “either by motions 19 submitted by the parties or sua sponte.” Solannex, Inc. v. Miasole, Inc., No. CV 11-00171 PSG, 20 2013 WL 430984, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013) (citing, inter alia, In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 21 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir.1987)); see also Invs. Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 22 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). To decide whether consolidation is appropriate, the court 23 24 11 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 13–15 (¶¶ 63–85); Opp’n – ECF No. 24 at 3; Mot. – ECF No. 16 at 8. 25 12 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 2 (¶ 1); Compl. Ex. A to Notice of Removal – Salonga ECF No. 1 at 24 (¶ 26 1). 13 Compl., Ex. A to Notice of Removal – Salonga ECF No. 1 at 26–27 (¶ 20). 27 14 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 10 (¶ 53). 1 should weigh “‘the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any 2 || inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.’” BizCloud, Inc. v. Comput. Scis. Corp., No. 3 C-13-05999 JCS, 2014 WL 1724762, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2014) (quoting Huene v. United 4 States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984)). Furthermore, “‘[a] common practice in consolidated 5 || multiple cases, including class actions, is to encourage use of a master pleading.’” Imran v. Vital 6 || Pharms., Inc., No. 18-cv-05758-JST, 2019 WL 12340204, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2019) 7 (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation § 21.15 (4th ed.)). 8 The actions (1) involve similar questions of law and fact (namely whether the defendant has 9 violated California wage-and-hour laws) and (2) are at a similar stage. Furthermore, no party has 10 || opposed consolidation or identified any inconvenience, delay, or expense that could result from 11 consolidation. Thus, the court consolidates these related cases and denies the defendant’s request 12 || to dismiss or stay under the first-to-file rule.

CONCLUSION

3 15 The related Salonga and Melgoza actions are consolidated under the lowest case number, 22- a 16 || cv-00525-LB. The plaintiffs must file a consolidated complaint within 28 days from the date of this 3 17 order. The consolidated complaint will become the operative complaint and shall supersede all 18 || previous complaints filed in either of the related actions. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: May 26, 2022 LAE 21

LAUREL BEELER

22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28