Quintero McColley v. Pacific Maritime Association et al

CASE NO. 3:25-CV-2372-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ERIKA QUINTERO McCOLLEY,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION;
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION,
INC.; APM TERMINALS PACIFIC LLC;
APS STEVEDORING, LLC; BENICIA
PORT TERMINAL COMPANY; CERES
TERMINALS INCORPORATED;
CRESCENT CITY MARINE WAYS&
DRYDOCK COMPANY, INC.; EAGLE
MARINE SERVICES, LTD.; EVERPORT
TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.; HARBOR
INDUSTRIAL SERVICES
CORPORATION; INNOVATIVE
TERMINAL SERVICES INC.;
INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE INC.; KINDER MORGAN
BULK TERMINALS LLC; LBCT, LLC;
MARINE TERMINALS
CORPORATION; MARINE
TERMINALS CORPORATION OF LOS
ANGELES; MATSON NAVIGATION
COMPANY, INC.; MATSON
TERMINALS, INC.; METROPOLITAN
STEVEDORE COMPANY; OCEAN
TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.; PACIFIC
CRANE MAINTENANCE COMPANY
LP; PACIFIC RO-RO; STEVEDORING,
Case No. 3:25-CV-2372-GPC-MSB
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS
[ECF Nos. 7, 8]
Case 3:25-cv-02372-GPC-MSB Document 15 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 13

2
3:25-CV-2372-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LLC; PASHA STEVEDORING &
TERMINALS LP; PORT
MAINTENANCE GROUP; SSA
MARINE, INC.; SSA TERMINALS,
LLC; TERMINAL EQUIPMENT
SERVICES, INC.; TOTAL TERMINALS
INTERNATIONAL, LLC; TRANSPAC
TERMINAL SERVICES, LLC; TRAPAC,
LLC; YUSEN TERMINALS, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
This case concerns alleged wage and hour violations towards various
dockworkers employed by Defendants. Defendants have filed two, separate motions to
dismiss on independent grounds. The first is a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”)1 12(b)(6) and strike Plaintiff’s
complaint pursuant to Rule 11. ECF No. 7. The second is a motion to dismiss pursuant to
the first-to-file rule or, in the alternative, to transfer this case to the Northern District of
California. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ first motion
to dismiss on November 21, 2025, ECF No. 10, to which Defendants replied on December
12, 2025, ECF No. 12. Plaintiff did not oppose Defendants’ motion to dismiss on first-
to-file grounds. Instead, Plaintiff filed a notice of related case and requested that the Court
transfer the case to the Northern District of California. ECF No. 14. The Court finds that
the matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Civ. R.
7.1(d)(1) and the January 23, 2026, hearing is hereby vacated. For the reasons explained
below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the first-to-file rule.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a former longshore worker who worked at the National City Marine
Terminal between October 2006 and July 2024. ECF No. 1-2, ¶ 6. Defendant Pacific
Maritime Association (“PMA”) is a California non-profit mutual benefit corporation
1 “Rule” or “Rules” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.
Case 3:25-cv-02372-GPC-MSB Document 15 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 13

3
3:25-CV-2372-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
whose members include more than fifty for-profit companies who employ dockworkers.
ECF No. 8-1, at 9. The other named Defendants are member companies of PMA that
operate as freight, operations, and logistics companies throughout the West Coast ports
in California. ECF No. 1-2, ¶ 7; ECF No. 8-1, at 7.
On April 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed her complaint alleging wage and hour violations
against Defendants in the Superior Court of California in the County of San Diego. ECF
No. 1-2, at 2. Plaintiff filed her action individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated, with the class members defined as “[a]ll persons who are or have been employed
by Defendants as Non-Exempt Employees or equivalent positions, however titled, in the
state of California within four (4) years from the filing of the Complaint in this action
until its resolution.” ECF No. 1-2, ¶ 10. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
failed to pay employees minimum and overtime wages; failed to provide meal periods or
compensation in lieu thereof; failed to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu
thereof; failed to indemnify business expenses; failed to provide itemized wage
statements; failed to pay timely wages upon separation; and violated of California
Business & Professions Code § 17200. Id. ¶¶ 44-89.
Plaintiff’s complaint is one of several class-action lawsuits filed against
Defendants asserting violations of California’s labor laws, the majority of which are
pending in California state court. See ECF No. 8-1, at 7.
On September 11, 2025, Defendants removed this action to this Court on the basis
of diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1, at 6. On October 17, 2025, Defendants filed two
motions to dismiss. The first is a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and a motion
to strike Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Rule 11. ECF No. 7. The second is a motion to
dismiss—or, alternatively, to transfer—under the first-to-file rule. ECF No. 8.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to the first-to-file rule alleges that
Plaintiff’s case is duplicative of Jasmine Phillips v. Pacific Maritime Association, et al.,
No. 4:24-cv-03241-JST, a class action pending in the Northern District of California
Case 3:25-cv-02372-GPC-MSB Document 15 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 13

4
3:25-CV-2372-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
before U.S. District Court Judge Jon S. Tigar. See generally ECF NO. 8-1. The Phillips
complaint was filed in state court on February 18, 2025. ECF No. 8-1, at 13. On April 10,
2025, the Phillips defendants—who, as here, consist of PMA and several of its member
companies—removed the action to federal court. ECF No. 8-1, at 13-14. On April 17,
2025, the Phillips defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, which Judge
Tigar granted with leave to amend on June 20, 2025. See Phillips, No. 4:24-cv-03241-
JST, Dkt. Nos. 8, 23. Judge Tigar has also denied the Phillips plaintiff’s motion to remand
to state court. Phillips, No. 4:24-cv-03241-JST, Dkt. No. 22. The Phillips plaintiff has
now filed a first amended complaint, and the case remains pending in the Northern
District of California. Phillips, No. 4:24-cv-03241-JST, Dkt. No. 30.
Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion on
November 21, 2025, ECF No. 10, to which Defendants replied on December 12, 2025,
ECF No. 12.
Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to the
first-to-file rule. Plaintiff instead filed a “notice of related case and request to transfer,”
referencing the same case identified by Defendants—Phillips v. Pacific Maritime
Association—and requesting a transfer to Judge Tigar’s docket in the Northern District
of California. ECF Nos. 13, 14.
LEGAL STANDARD
Given that Plaintiff has not opposed the motion to dismiss based upon the first-to-
file rule, the Court will confine itself to addressing this motion.
The first-to-file rule is a “recognized doctrine of federal comity which permits a
district court to decline jurisdiction over an action when a complaint involving the same
parties and issues has already been filed in another district.” Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v.
Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94-95 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing Church of Scientology of Cal.
v. U.S. Dep't of Army, 611 F.2d 738, 749 (9th Cir. 1979)). The rule was developed to
“serve[] the purpose of promoting efficiency well,” and, while application of the rule is
Case 3:25-cv-02372-GPC-MSB Document 15 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 13

5
3:25-CV-2372-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
discretionary, it “should not be disregarded lightly.” Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prod., Inc.,
946 F.2d 622, 625, 628 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Church of Scientology, 611 F.2d at 750).
The first-to-file rule “allows a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an action when a
similar complaint has already been filed in another federal court.” Id. at 623.
In determining the applicability of the first-to-file rule, courts look to three factors:
(1) the chronology of the lawsuits, (2) the similarity of the parties, and (3) the similarity
of the issues. See id. at 625. The “rule is not a rigid or inflexible rule to be mechanically
applied, but rather is to be applied with a view to the dictates of sound judicial
administration.” Pacesetter Sys., Inc., 678 F.2d at 95. Exceptions to the first-to-file rule
include where the filing of the first suit evidences bad faith, anticipatory suits, and forum
shopping. Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628. Moreover, a court may, in its discretion, decline to
apply the first-to-file rule in the interests of equity or upon a demonstration of
prejudice. Adoma v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 711 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1149 (E.D. Cal.
2010); Ward v. Follett Corp., 158 F.R.D. 645, 648 (N.D. Cal. 1994). When applying the
first-to-file rule, courts should be driven to maximize “economy, consistency, and
comity.” Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599, 604 (5th Cir. 1999).
DISCUSSION
The Parties do not dispute the related nature of Phillips and the instant McColley
action. ECF Nos. 8, 13. Indeed, Plaintiff has stated that “[t]his matter and the Phillips
action potentially overlap in many respects in terms of parties, subject matters, causes of
action, class definitions, and time periods.” ECF No. 114, at 3. However, Defendant
argues that the first-to-file rule warrants dismissal, while Plaintiff requests a transfer
without any acknowledgement of either the first-to-file rule or Defendants’ arguments in
favor of dismissal. ECF Nos. 8, 13. Thus, the Court will first analyze the propriety of
applying the first-to-file rule in this case. It will then consider whether dismissal or
transfer is more appropriate.
/ / /
Case 3:25-cv-02372-GPC-MSB Document 15 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 13

6
3:25-CV-2372-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. Application of the First-to-File Rule Is Proper
In considering the chronology, similarity of the parties, and similarity of the claims
between the McColley and Phillips actions, the Court determines that application of the
first-to-file rule is appropriate.
A. Chronology
Courts should consider applying the first-to-file rule where the instant action was
filed later in time. Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 625. Here, Phillips was indisputably filed first in
state court on February 18, 2025 and, on April 10, 2025, it was removed to federal court.
Phillips, No. 4:24-cv-03241-JST, Dkt. No. 1. This action was filed in state court on April
10, 2025, and removed on September 11, 2025. ECF No. 1. Thus, chronology favors an
application of the first-to-file rule.
B. Similarity of Parties
To warrant application of the first-to-file rule, the parties need not be identical.
Kohn L. Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Mississippi, Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1240 (9th Cir.
2015). Rather, substantial similarity suffices. Id. Substantial similarity is “satisfied if
some of the parties in one matter are also in the other matter, regardless of whether there
are additional unmatched parties in one or both matters.” Mack v. Amazon.com, Inc., No.
17-cv-02515-ABR-AOX, 2017 WL 8220436, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2017).
Here, the Defendants are nearly identical. Plaintiff’s complaint lists PMA and
several of its member companies, totaling 32 Defendants. ECF No. 1-2, at 2-3; ECF No.
8-1, at 7. However, Defendants allege that two listed Defendants are duplicative
misnomers of other existing Defendants.2 The Court further finds that one additional
2 Defendants allege that Defendant Pacific Maritime Association was also erroneously sued
as Pacific Maritime Association, Inc., and that Defendant Marine Terminals Corporation
was also erroneously sued as Marine Terminals Corporation of Los Angeles. ECF No. 7-
1, at 9 n.1.
Case 3:25-cv-02372-GPC-MSB Document 15 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 13

7
3:25-CV-2372-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
listed Defendant appears to be an error.3 Without considering the seemingly erroneous
Defendants, Plaintiff’s complaint lists only two Defendants not included in the Phillips
complaint—Matson Terminals, Inc., and SSA Marine, Inc.4 Even so, “[m]erely naming
additional defendants in the second-filed action [does] not render the parties too
dissimilar to apply the first to file rule.” Hill v. Robert's Am. Gourmet Food, LLC, Case
No. 13-cv-00696-YGR, 2013 WL 3476801, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2013); see also
Ortiz v. Walmart, Inc. No. 2:20-cv-05052-AB-KK, 2020 WL 5835323, at *3 (C.D. Cal.
Sept. 18, 2020). Thus, the Court finds that the defendants in the two cases are
substantially similar.
As to the similarity of the plaintiffs, where, as here, the cases involve class actions,
“the classes, and not the class representatives, are compared.” Mack, 2017 WL 8220436,
at *2. The class definition in Phillips is as follows:
[A] California class, defined as all individuals who are or
previously were employed by [Defendants] and classified as non-
exempt employees at any time during the period beginning four
(4) years prior to the filing of the original Complaint and ending
on the date as determined by the Court.
The class defined in the McColley action is:
“All persons who are or have been employed by Defendants as
Non-Exempt Employees or equivalent positions, however titled,
in the state of California within four (4) years from the filing of
the Complaint in this action until its resolution.”
3 Plaintiff’s complaint lists “Pacific Ro-Ro; Stevedoring, LLC;”—resulting in the
appearance of two separate Defendants—while the Phillips complaint lists “Pacific Ro-Ro
Stevedoring, LLC,” ECF No. 8-10, at 2, and Defendants refer to “Pacific Ro-Ro
Stevedoring, LLC,” ECF No. 7-1, at 9 n.1.
4 However, this too seems to be an error. While SSA Marine, Inc. is not listed as a
Defendant in the Phillips complaint, the Phillips complaint states that “Pacific Maritime
Association’s Board of Directors is composed of executives from these other Member
Companies including, but not limited to Defendant SSA Marine.” ECF No. 8-10, at 10.
Case 3:25-cv-02372-GPC-MSB Document 15 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 7 of 13

8
3:25-CV-2372-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
As with the named defendants, the class definitions in the two cases are nearly
identical and largely cover the same individuals. See Wallerstein v. Dole Fresh
Vegetables, Inc., 967 F. Supp. 2d 1289, 1296 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (“Courts have held that
proposed classes in class action lawsuits are substantially similar where both classes seek
to represent at least some of the same individuals.”). Plaintiff has also acknowledged that
“[b]oth the McColley and Phillips matters seek to represent a class of all non-exempt
employees employed by Defendants.” ECF No. 114, at 3.
Both cases involve non-exempt California dock workers suing PMA and several
of its member companies based on alleged violations of California labor law. Thus, the
Court finds there is substantial similarity between the parties involved in both cases, and
the second requirement of the first-to-file rule is satisfied.
C. Similarity of Issues
Lastly, the Court finds that the causes of action in McColley and Phillips are
essentially identical:
Causes of Action in McColley Causes of Action in Phillips
1. Failure to pay wages and
overtime wages
1. Unlawful business practices in
violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code § 17200
2. Failure to provide meal periods 2. Failure to pay minimum wages
3. Failure to provide rest periods 3. Failure to pay overtime wages
4. Failure to indemnify necessary
business expenses
4. Failure to provide meal periods
5. Failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements
5. Failure to provide rest periods
6. Failure to timely pay wages upon
separation
6. Failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements
7. Unfair business practices in
violation of Cal. Bus. Prof. Code
§ 17200
7. Failure to indemnify necessary
business expenses
Though it appears that the McColley Plaintiff has raised an additional claim not
covered by the Phillips complaint—failure to timely pay wages upon separation, ECF No.
Case 3:25-cv-02372-GPC-MSB Document 15 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 8 of 13

9
3:25-CV-2372-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1-2, at 21—the Phillips complaint consolidates that allegation within its “failure to pay
minimum wages” cause of action. See ECF No. 8-10, ¶ 103 (“To the extent minimum
wage compensation is determined to be owed to [class members] who have terminated
their employment, [Defendants’] conduct also violates Labor Code §§ 201 and/or 202,
and therefore these individuals are also be entitled to waiting time penalties under Cal.
Lab. Code § 203, which penalties are sought herein on behalf of these [class members].”).
Indeed, Plaintiff herself has noted that: “both plaintiffs allege class action claims against
Defendants, which include but are not limited to: (1) unpaid overtime; (2) unpaid
minimum wages; (3) unpaid meal period penalties; (4) unpaid rest period penalties; (5)
penalties for noncompliant wage statements; (6) waiting time penalties; (7) expense
reimbursements, and (8) unfair business practices.” ECF No. 14, at 3 (emphasis added).
While “the issues need not be identical for this factor to be satisfied,” the issues in
Phillips and McColley seemingly are identical. Ortiz, 2020 WL 5835323, at *4. Thus, the
similarity of the issues indicates that application of the first-to-file rule is warranted.
Lastly, there is no evidence that the Phillips action was filed in bad faith, was the
result of forum shopping, or that convenience factors favor this adjudication of the matter
in this District. Accordingly, no equitable considerations counsel against application of
the first-to-file rule. See Ortiz, 2020 WL 5835323, at *4 (citing MeridianLink, Inc. v. DH
Holdings, LLC, Case No. CV 10-2708 ABC-JEMx, 2010 WL 11512182, at *2 (C.D. Cal.
June 16, 2010)).
II. Dismissal is the Appropriate Remedy
Having found that application of the first-to-file rule is proper, the remaining
question is whether transfer or dismissal is the appropriate remedy.
Defendants argue that this case should be dismissed to avoid duplicative litigation
and inconsistent outcomes. ECF No. 8-1, at 8. Plaintiff requests transfer as opposed to
dismissal, but has neither opposed Defendants’ motion to dismiss on first-to-file grounds
Case 3:25-cv-02372-GPC-MSB Document 15 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 9 of 13

10
3:25-CV-2372-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
nor articulated any reasoning for why transfer is a more appropriate remedy than
dismissal. ECF No. 14.
“Transfer is proper under the first-to-file rule where the complaints raise similar,
but not identical, claims and include similar, but not identical, plaintiffs.” Carrera v. First
Am. Home Buyers Prot. Co., No. CV-09-7801-GHK-FFMX, 2009 WL 10674763, at *3
(C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2009). Here, the Court has found the plaintiffs and the claims in
McColley and Phillips to be essentially identical, and Plaintiff has not produced any
argument otherwise. Further, the Court finds that dismissal better reflects the aims of the
first-to-file rule.
“Two main objectives of the first-to-file rule are (1) ‘to avoid placing an
unnecessary burden on the federal judiciary’ and (2) ‘to avoid the embarrassment of
conflicting judgments.’” Ortiz, 2020 WL 5835323, at *4 (quoting Church of Scientology,
611 F.2d at 750). At its core, the rule exists to “serve[] the purpose of promoting
efficiency.” Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 625. Here, these considerations favor dismissal. If this
action proceeds, there is a risk of conflicting results and wasted judicial resources. Indeed,
“[t]his case involves the same causes of action, the same Defendants, the same location,
the same employees, and the same core issues as in the [Phillips] action, and the Court
sees no reason why two substantially similar matters warrant duplicative litigation.” Ortiz,
2020 WL 5835323, at *4. Further, the Phillips action fully encompasses and provides
redress for all allegations in McColley. See id. Thus, dismissal promotes efficiency in this
case.
Plaintiff has also not presented any compelling reasons to allow this action to
proceed. For example, Plaintiff has not argued this action is not duplicative of Phillips.
See King v. WinCo Holdings, Inc., No. 2:22-CV-05572-JLS-JDE, 2022 WL 18284892,
at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2022). Nor does Plaintiff argue that the Phillips action would
provide insufficient remedies for the claims Plaintiff alleges. See De La Cruz v. Target
Corp., 2018 WL 3817950, at *2 (citing Intersearch Worldwide, Ltd. v. Intersearch Grp.,
Case 3:25-cv-02372-GPC-MSB Document 15 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 10 of 13

11
3:25-CV-2372-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Inc., 544 F. Supp. 2d 949, 963 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“Dismissal is proper where the court of
first filing provides adequate remedies.”)).
Additionally, Plaintiff does not argue that the Phillips case is likely to be dismissed,
such that this action should be stayed, rather than dismissed. See De La Cruz v. Target
Corp., No. 18-CV-0867 DMS (WVG), 2018 WL 3817950, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2018);
Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 629 (“Where the first-filed action presents a likelihood of dismissal,
the second-filed suit should be stayed, rather than dismissed.”). Though Judge Tigar
granted the Phillips defendants’ first motion to dismiss, he did so only on the grounds
that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege Defendants’ liability as joint employers, and
did not otherwise consider the merits of plaintiffs’ claims. See Phillips, No. 4:24-cv-
03241-JST, Dkt. No. 22, at 1-2. The Phillips plaintiff has since filed an amended
complaint. Phillips, No. 4:24-cv-03241-JST, Dkt. No. 30. Plaintiff does not demonstrate
any concerns of dismissal, as she does not request a stay but a transfer to Judge Tigar’s
docket where the two cases may be consolidated. See, e.g., Wallerstein v. Dole Fresh
Vegetables, Inc., 967 F. Supp. 2d 1289, 1297 (N.D. Cal. 2013). Thus, the previous
dismissal of the Phillips complaint does not persuade this Court to exercise its discretion
to stay or transfer rather than dismiss this action.
The Court notes that the class in Phillips is not yet certified. However, even if the
Court dismisses this action and Phillips does not proceed as a class action, Plaintiff will
still be able to pursue her claims against Defendants. See King, 2022 WL 18284892, at
*3. As this Court has previously explained:
If the [Phillips] action results in a class settlement, the putative
class members in this suit can obtain adequate relief, and Plaintiff
will likewise have the opportunity to participate in the settlement
or [s]he may opt out to pursue h[er] claims individually. In the
event the [Phillips] court denies class certification, Plaintiff may
litigate h[er] individual claims as an intervenor or pursue h[er]
individual claims in a separate lawsuit. The putative class
members may also proceed with their individual claims in an
appropriate forum. The proposed class and the issues presented
Case 3:25-cv-02372-GPC-MSB Document 15 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 11 of 13

12
3:25-CV-2372-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
are essentially identical to those presented in the [Phillips] action,
such that there is nothing to suggest this action would be certified
while the [Phillips] action would not. This case is at its infancy,
and allowing this case to proceed would both impede judicial
efficiency and run a significant risk of conflicting judgments.
See De La Cruz, 2018 WL 3817950, at *2. But see Carrera v. First Am. Home Buyers
Prot. Co., No. CV-09-7801-GHK-FFMX, 2009 WL 10674763, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30,
2009) (finding that the fact that no class had been certified in either case weighed in favor
of transfer rather than dismissal.).
Considering the above, the Court exercises its discretion and grants Defendants’
motion to dismiss pursuant to the first-to-file rule. Plaintiff has provided no compelling
argument in favor of transfer rather than dismissal. She has not argued that this case is
not duplicative of Phillips, that Phillips is likely to be dismissed, or that Phillips would
provide inadequate remedies. In fact, Plaintiff has not offered any opposition to the
motion to dismiss under the first-to-file rule. This failure permits the Court to grant the
motion as unopposed. See Civ LR 7.1(f)(3)(c) (“If an opposing party fails to file [an
opposition], that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion[.]”);
Velasquez v. California, 68 F. App'x 833, 834 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming district court’s
granting of a motion to dismiss because plaintiff failed to oppose the motion per local
rules); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for failure to
file timely opposition papers where plaintiff had notice of the motion and ample time to
respond); Hawk v. MortgageIt Inc., No. 08-CV-1922 W (NLS), 2009 WL 10671991, at
*2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2009) (“[T]he Court interprets Plaintiff’s failure to oppose
[defendant’s] motion to dismiss as a consent to its merits.”).
The Court finds that the Phillips action fully encompasses and provides redress for
all allegations in this action. Thus, the Court concludes that dismissal best promotes
efficiency in this case. See, e.g., Ortiz, 2020 WL 5835323, at *4; see also Dowell v.
WinCo Holding, Inc., No. 5:23-CV-00976-JLS-JDE, 2023 WL 5276609, at *2 (C.D. Cal.
Case 3:25-cv-02372-GPC-MSB Document 15 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 12 of 13

13
3:25-CV-2372-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
July 17, 2023); King, 2022 WL 18284892, at *3; De La Cruz v. Target Corp., 2018 WL
3817950, at *2; Alvarez v. Safelite Grp., Inc., No. 2-21-CV-07874-OD-WASX, 2022 WL
19569839, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2022).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss the
case based on the first-to-file rule, ECF No. 8. The Court DENIES as moot Defendants’
motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), ECF No. 7. Plaintiff’s claims are
DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 13, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-02372-GPC-MSB Document 15 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 13 of 13