This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/30/2021 at 17:25:10 (UTC).

CONSUELO GALINDO, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHER AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES VS CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 03/18/2021 CONSUELO GALINDO, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHER AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS, INC , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ARMEN TAMZARIAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0625

  • Filing Date:

    03/18/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ARMEN TAMZARIAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

GALINDO ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHER AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES CONSUELO

Defendants

SMITHFIELD FOODS INC. AN ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM

SMITHFIELD PACKAGED MEATS CORP. A DELAWARE CORPORATION

CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

SMITHFIELD AN ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM

SMITHFIELD FRESH MEATS CORP. A DELAWARE CORPORATION

SMITFIELD/FARMER JOHN AN ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SHKODNIK ROMAN

Defendant Attorneys

BOBB MATTHEW

SLATER CHARLES

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE MANAGEME...)

8/16/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE MANAGEME...)

Notice of Related Case

6/21/2021: Notice of Related Case

Declaration - DECLARATION OF MATTHEW I. BOBB IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS

6/21/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF MATTHEW I. BOBB IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

7/7/2021: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Case Management Statement

7/30/2021: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

7/30/2021: Case Management Statement

Request for Judicial Notice

8/3/2021: Request for Judicial Notice

Case Management Statement

8/3/2021: Case Management Statement

Reply - REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS

8/9/2021: Reply - REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

4/2/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Personal Service

4/2/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

4/2/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

4/6/2021: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Answer

4/21/2021: Answer

Declaration - DECLARATION OF MATTHEW I. BOBB RE AUTOMATIC 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SMITHFIELD DEFENDANTS TO FILE A DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

5/14/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF MATTHEW I. BOBB RE AUTOMATIC 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SMITHFIELD DEFENDANTS TO FILE A DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

3/18/2021: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Complaint

3/18/2021: Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

3/19/2021: Civil Case Cover Sheet

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/16/2022
  • Hearing08/16/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 52 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2021
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 52, Armen Tamzarian, Presiding; Case Management Conference ((cf 7/22/21)) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 52, Armen Tamzarian, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 52, Armen Tamzarian, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike; Case Manageme...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2021
  • DocketReply (Memorandum in Support of Defendants Demurrer to Plaintiffs Complaint and, in the Alternative, Motion to Stay All Proceedings); Filed by Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp., a Delaware corporation (Defendant); Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp., a Delaware corporation (Defendant); Smithfield, an entity of unknown form (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Citistaff Solutions, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2021
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by Consuelo Galindo, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2021
  • DocketOpposition (PLAINTIFF CONSUELO GALINDO?S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS? DEMURRER OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR A STAY); Filed by Consuelo Galindo, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Consuelo Galindo, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
8 More Docket Entries
  • 04/21/2021
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Citistaff Solutions, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2021
  • DocketNotice (NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE); Filed by Consuelo Galindo, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Consuelo Galindo, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Consuelo Galindo, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Consuelo Galindo, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Consuelo Galindo, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Consuelo Galindo, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Consuelo Galindo, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 21STCV10625 Hearing Date: August 16, 2021 Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling

\r\n\r\n

Defendants Smithfield Fresh Meats\r\nCorp.; Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp.; Smithfield; Smithfield Foods Inc.; and\r\nSmithfield/Farmer John’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint and, in the\r\nAlternative, Motion to Stay All Proceedings

\r\n\r\n

The\r\nSmithfield defendants demur or, in the alternative, move to stay this case based\r\non the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction. “The established rule of ‘exclusive\r\nconcurrent jurisdiction’ provides that where two (or more) courts possess\r\nconcurrent subject matter jurisdiction over a cause, the court that first\r\nasserts jurisdiction assumes it to the exclusion of all others, thus rendering ‘concurrent’\r\njurisdiction ‘exclusive’ with the first court.” \r\n(Franklin & Franklin v. 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising\r\n(2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1175 (Franklin).) “The rule is based upon the public policies\r\nof avoiding conflicts that might arise between courts if they were free to make\r\ncontradictory decisions or awards relating to the same controversy, and\r\npreventing vexatious litigation and multiplicity of suits.” (Plant Insulation Co. v. Fibreboard Corp.\r\n(1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 786–787 (Plant Insulation).)

\r\n\r\n

The doctrine of exclusive\r\nconcurrent jurisdiction “does not require absolute identity of parties, causes\r\nof action or remedies sought in the initial and subsequent actions.” (Plant Insulation, supra, 224\r\nCal.App.3d at p. 788.) Instead, “[i]t is\r\nsufficient” that “the issues… are substantially the same, and individual suits\r\nmight result in conflicting judgments.” \r\n(Franklin, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 1175.)

\r\n\r\n

The doctrine of exclusive\r\nconcurrent jurisdiction applies here. This\r\ncase is a PAGA action on behalf of plaintiff Consuelo Galindo and similarly\r\nsituated aggrieved employees of defendants Citistaff Solutions, Inc., Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp.,\r\nSmithfield Packaged Meats Corp., Smithfield; Smithfield Foods Inc., and\r\nSmithfield/Farmer John. The group of\r\naggrieved employees are those who worked for defendants from January 6, 2020 to\r\nthe present. (Comp., ¶ 1.) Plaintiff alleges all defendants jointly\r\nemployed the aggrieved employees. (¶\r\n13.)

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff\r\nalleges four causes of action:

\r\n\r\n

1) \r\nFailure\r\nto pay minimum wages

\r\n\r\n

2) \r\nFailure\r\nto pay wages and overtime

\r\n\r\n

3) \r\nViolation\r\nof Labor Code §§ 226(a), 1174 (wage statements & accurate records)

\r\n\r\n

4) \r\nViolation\r\nof Labor Code §§ 203, 204 (timely payment after discharge)

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The earlier filed case is Michelle\r\nHelaire v. Aerotek, Inc., et al., San Bernardino County Superior Court No. CIVDS2014070,\r\nfiled on July 20, 2020. (Def. RJN, Ex.\r\nA.) In the operative first amended\r\ncomplaint, plaintiffs Michelle Helaire and Robert Sarabia, on behalf of\r\nthemselves and other aggrieved employees, alleges five causes of action against\r\ndefendants Aerotek, Inc., Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp., and Kevin Hobbs:

\r\n\r\n

1) \r\nCivil\r\npenalties under Labor Code § 210 (timely payment of wages)

\r\n\r\n

2) \r\nCivil\r\npenalties under Labor Code § 226.3 (itemized wage statements)

\r\n\r\n

3) \r\nViolation\r\nof Labor Code § 558 (overtime)

\r\n\r\n

4) \r\nViolation\r\nof Labor Code § 1197.1 (minimum wage)

\r\n\r\n

5) \r\nCivil\r\npenalties under Labor Code § 2699 (PAGA)

\r\n\r\n

(Def. RJN, Ex. B.)

\r\n\r\n

In that\r\ncase, the group of aggrieved employees includes all employees who worked for those\r\ndefendants during the statutory period of one year before plaintiffs provided\r\nnotice to the LWDA of the alleged violations. \r\n(Def. RJN, Ex. B, ¶¶ 22-28.) \r\nHelaire provided notice to the LWDA on May 11, 2020 (Id., ¶ 26),\r\nand Sarabia did the same on November 18, 2020. \r\n(Id., ¶ 28.) The\r\nplaintiffs allege all defendants acted as joint employers. (Id., ¶ 19.)

\r\n\r\n

Although the claims and parties are\r\nnot identical, they overlap substantially. \r\nAll aggrieved employees in this case would also be aggrieved employees\r\nin Helaire v. Aerotek, Inc. because they gave notice to the LWDA before\r\nplaintiff Galindo. All defendants are\r\nalleged to be joint employers operating under the umbrella of “Smithfield”\r\nentities. Both cases allege violations\r\nof Labor Code provisions on minimum wages, overtime, and itemized wage\r\nstatements. There is a substantial\r\ndanger of inconsistent judgments. For\r\nexample, a judgment for defendants in the first case would be inconsistent with\r\na judgment for plaintiffs in this case.

\r\n\r\n

Although the Labor Code explicitly\r\nprovides that an action by the LWDA prohibits a PAGA action by an aggrieved\r\nemployee (Lab. Code, § 2699(h), it does not address overlapping actions by\r\ndifferent aggrieved employees. But there\r\nis no reason why the common-law doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction\r\nwould not apply.

\r\n\r\n

Trial courts also “generally have the\r\ninherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote\r\njudicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v.\r\nCity of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) Proceeding along parallel tracks—with the\r\npotential for inconsistent results—is not in the interest of justice or\r\njudicial efficiency.

\r\n\r\n

The motion is GRANTED. The case is hereby stayed in its\r\nentirety pending resolution of the first filed case, Michelle Helaire v.\r\nAerotek, Inc., et al., San Bernardino County Superior Court No. CIVDS2014070.

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Smithfield Foods & More; DBA : Smithfield Farmland a North Carolina Corporation is a litigant

Latest cases where GALINDO is a litigant

Latest cases where SMITHFIELD PACKAGED MEATS CORP. is a litigant

Latest cases where CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant