Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Cherisha Lovejoy filed a putative class action in February 2023 in the Southern District of California against her employer Transdev Services, Inc. alleging that the company paid bus driver/operator employees for idealized “paddle estimates” of hours rather than for actual hours worked, and asserted standard California wage-and-hour and unfair-competition claims. The court certified the class for all causes of action after two rounds of briefing.
It later came to the court’s attention that there were five parallel state-court actions against the same defendant or its corporate affiliates in Los Angeles Superior Court — including the Reese action (filed August 2021), the Diaz class action (filed October 2022), and the related Diaz PAGA action — all involving overlapping or broader proposed classes of California Transdev workers and similar wage-and-hour theories. After Lovejoy unsuccessfully moved to stay the state actions, the court issued an order to show cause and the parties briefed whether the federal class should remain certified given the parallel proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The court decertified the class, granted the defendant’s motion to stay, and denied as moot the plaintiff’s motion for approval of class notice.
Federal Rule 23 requires that a class action be the “superior” method of resolving the dispute. When earlier-filed state-court class actions cover overlapping classes and similar claims and have advanced further procedurally, the federal class action is generally not superior. The court explained that allowing the federal action to proceed in parallel would risk inconsistent judgments, duplicative discovery, and confusion among potential class members. The earlier-filed state-court actions could provide complete relief to the same workers under the same legal theories.
Having decertified, the court applied the discretionary Landis v. North American Co. stay framework — the same framework used in earlier California decisions to stay federal class actions in favor of overlapping state class actions. The factors favored a stay: significant overlap with state cases, the state proceedings were further along, and pressing forward with parallel federal-court litigation would impose hardship without offsetting benefit.
Key Takeaways
- A federal class certification can be revisited and reversed if developments — like the discovery of overlapping state class actions — undercut the Rule 23 superiority requirement.
- Plaintiffs filing California wage-and-hour class actions should investigate parallel state-court litigation before filing in federal court. Earlier-filed overlapping state classes can derail the federal case.
- After decertification, federal courts often stay rather than dismiss the case, allowing the state actions to proceed and preserving the option to revive federal proceedings if needed.
- The Landis stay framework applies to decertified or non-class actions just as it does to class actions; federal courts have inherent authority to manage their dockets when overlapping state proceedings are pending.
Why It Matters
California’s wage-and-hour bar produces frequent overlapping state and federal class actions, particularly in industries like transportation, retail, and food service that have large hourly workforces. This decision is a useful illustration of how California federal courts handle the tension. Even after class certification, federal courts will revisit their position if it becomes clear that parallel state proceedings cover the same workforce and claims.
For California plaintiffs’ counsel, the case is a reminder to map the litigation landscape carefully before filing — and to be prepared to respond when defendants surface earlier-filed state actions to defeat federal-court class status. For California employers facing serial wage-and-hour suits, the case provides a useful template for arguing that a federal class action is not the superior method when state-court litigation is already addressing the same claims.