Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARMELO VIELMA, individually and Case No.: 3:26-cv-01935-CAB-JAC on behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER STAYING ACTION Plaintiff, 13 v. [Doc. No. 11] 14 FORWARD AIR SERVICES, LLC and 15 DOES 1 through 10, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Before the Court is Defendant Forward Air Services, LLC’s motion to dismiss, or in 19 the alternative, to stay. [Doc. No. 11.] The matter is fully briefed and the Court finds it 20 suitable for determination on the papers. See CivLr 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons discussed 21 below, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED, and the action is STAYED. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff Carmelo Vielma (“Vielma”) formerly worked as an hourly, non-exempt 24 cargo handler for Defendant Forward Air Services, LLC (“Defendant”). [Doc. No. 1-2 at 25 5.] Vielma brought the instant action against Defendant on October 31, 2025, in San Diego 26 County Superior Court, bearing Case No. 25CU059055C. [Doc. No. 1 at 2–3.] Vielma 27 brings eight causes of action, most of which are failures to comply with the California 28 1 Labor Code. [See Doc. No. 1-2 at 2–4.] On March 26, 2026, Defendant removed the case 2 to federal court. [Doc. No. 1 at 2.] 3 Previously, on August 28, 2025, Federico Hernandez Jr. (“Hernandez”) also sued 4 Defendant on behalf of himself and class members in Los Angeles County Superior Court, 5 Case No. 25STCV25400 (“Hernandez action”). [Doc. No. 4 at 2.] Both Hernandez’s and 6 Vielma’s actions bring the same causes of action, on behalf of the same putative class 7 members, over the same time period. [Id. at 2–4.] 8 After Hernandez filed his complaint, the Los Angeles County Superior Court stayed 9 his action pending the initial status conference. [Doc. No. 16-2 at 13.] Following the status 10 conference, the state court lifted the stay to allow Defendant to file a motion to compel 11 arbitration by December 30, 2025. [Id.] On December 15, 2025, Hernandez filed an 12 amended complaint. [Id. at 14.] Defendant removed the case to the Central District of 13 California on January 23, 2026. [Id. at 2.] Defendant never filed a motion to compel 14 arbitration. [Doc. No. 15-1 at 17.] On February 20, 2026, Hernandez filed a motion to 15 remand arguing that removal was improper because Defendant allegedly missed the 16 deadline to compel arbitration in state court. [Doc. No. 15-1 at 25–27.] 17 On May 19, 2026, in the instant case, Defendant moved to dismiss, or in the 18 alternative, to stay pursuant to the first-to-file rule. [Doc. No. 11.] Vielma argues that 19 Defendant’s motion should be denied because of their alleged forum shopping in the 20 Hernandez action. [Doc. No. 15.] In the alternative, Vielma requests that the Court stay 21 this action pending the Hernandez motion for remand or transfer this action to the Central 22 District. [Id. at 4.] 23 II. LEGAL STANDARD 24 “There is a generally recognized doctrine of federal comity which permits a district 25 court to decline jurisdiction over an action when a complaint involving the same parties 26 and issues has already been filed in another district.” Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, 27 Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94–95 (9th Cir. 1982). “[W]hen two identical actions are filed in courts 28 of concurrent jurisdiction, the court which first acquired jurisdiction should try 1 the lawsuit[.]” Id. at 95. The doctrine, known as the “first-to-file rule,” is “designed to 2 avoid placing an unnecessary burden on the federal judiciary, and to avoid the 3 embarrassment of conflicting judgments.” Church of Scientology of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of 4 Army, 611 F.2d 738, 750 (9th Cir. 1979), overruled on other grounds by Animal Legal Def. 5 Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2016). 6 In deciding whether to apply the first-to-file rule, the Ninth Circuit considers three 7 factors: (1) chronology of the lawsuits, (2) similarity of the parties, and (3) similarity of 8 the issues. Kohn L. Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1240 (9th Cir. 9 2015). If the court decides to apply the first-to-file rule, it has the discretion to dismiss, 10 stay, or transfer the case. See Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 623, 11 628 (9th Cir. 1991); Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183–84 12 (1952) (“Necessarily, an ample degree of discretion, appropriate for disciplined and 13 experienced judges, must be left to the lower courts.”). 14 The rule is “not a rigid or inflexible rule to be mechanically applied, but rather is to 15 be applied with a view to the dictates of sound judicial administration.” Pacesetter Sys., 16 Inc., 678 F.2d at 95. But, the rule “should not be disregarded lightly.” Church of 17 Scientology of Cal., 611 F.2d at 750. “[C]ircumstances under which an exception to the 18 first-to-file rule typically will be made include bad faith, anticipatory suit, and forum 19 shopping.” Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628 (cleaned up). 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 The Court finds that all three factors—chronology, party similarity, and issue 22 similarity—weigh for applying the first-to-file rule. The Hernandez action was filed two 23 months before Vielma’s action. [See Doc. No. 4 at 2; see Doc. No. 1 at 1.] The parties 24 involved are similar, the putative class in both actions are the same, and Forward Air 25 Services, LLC is a defendant in both actions. [Doc. No. 11-1 at 7–8, 11–12.] Further, as 26 Defendant notes, Vielma “and Hernandez are not only named plaintiffs in their respective 27 Actions, but also putative class members in each other’s Actions.” [Doc. No. 11-1 at 13.] 28 | || Finally, the causes of action and issues in each of the plaintiffs’ complaints are substantially 2 ||the same. [/d. at 13-14.] 3 Plaintiff argues that Defendant engaged in forum shopping by allegedly removing 4 ||the Hernandez action to federal court because it “miss[ed] its deadline to file a motion to 5 ||compel arbitration” in state court. [Doc. No. 15 at 2—3.] This exact issue, however, is 6 currently pending with the Central District in the motion to remand. See Hernandez v. 7 || Forward Air, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-717-CV-E, Doc. No. 15 at 7-9 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 8 ||2026). Thus, the Court ruling on this issue could potentially create “conflicting 9 judgments.” Church of Scientology, 611 F.2d at 750. The Court finds that the first-to-file 10 applies. 11 “In implementing the ‘first to file’ rule, federal courts commonly stay the second 12 || filed action to afford the court of the first filed action an opportunity to decide whether to 13 || keep the dispute. Ifthe ‘first filed’ court keeps the action, the ‘second filed’ action can be 14 subsequently dismissed or transferred. If the ‘first filed’ court does not keep the dispute, 15 stay in the second filed action can be subsequently lifted.” Longview Fibre Paper & 16 || Packaging, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., No. C06-5666FDB, 2007 WL 601226, at *1 17 ||(W.D. Wash. Feb. 22, 2007) (citing Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628). The Central District 18 |/recently stated that it expects to issue its decision on the motion to remand no later than 19 || October 30, 2026. Hernandez, Case No. 2:26-cv-717-CV-E, Doc. No. 22 (C.D. Cal. July 20 ||29, 2026). Accordingly, the Court STAYS this action pending the Central District’s 21 decision on the motion to remand in Hernandez. 22 IV. CONCLUSION 23 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion and STAYS the action. 24 || The parties shall file a notice with the Court within three days of the Central District issuing 25 decision on the motion to remand in Hernandez. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. ZL 27 Dated: August 4, 2026 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 28 United States District Judge