Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 20 Filed 03/30/22 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:244
`
`DANIELLE J. MOSS (admitted pro hac vice)
`dmoss@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166-0193
`Telephone: 212.351.4000
`Facsimile: 212.351.4035
`
`MEGAN COONEY, SBN 295174
`mcooney@gibsondunn.com
`LAUREN M. FISCHER, SBN 318625
`lfischer@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`3161 Michelson Drive
`Irvine, CA 92612-4412
`Telephone: 949.451.3800
`Facsimile: 949.451.4220
`Attorneys for Defendant PELOTON
`INTERACTIVE, INC.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`MARK COHEN, as an individual and
`on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., a
`Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
`through 50, inclusive,
`Defendants.
`
` CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E
`DEFENDANT PELOTON
`INTERACTIVE, INC.’S NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY
`ACTION; MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`[Declaration of Megan Cooney; Proposed
`Order; and Request for Judicial Notice
`filed concurrently herewith]
`Hearing:
`May 2, 2022
`Date:
`10:00 a.m.
`Time:
`Courtroom 5A
`Place:
`Judge: Michael W. Fitzgerald
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`DEFENDANT PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 20 Filed 03/30/22 Page 2 of 22 Page ID #:245
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 2, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter
`as the matter may be heard, in Los Angeles, California, before the Honorable Michael
`W. Fitzgerald, Defendant Peloton Interactive, Inc. (“Peloton”), by and through its
`counsel of record, will and hereby does move the Court to enter an order staying this
`action pending resolution of an overlapping, earlier-filed putative class action,
`Hernandez, et al. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., Case Nos. RG20053333 and RG20061729
`(“Hernandez”), which is currently awaiting final settlement approval before the
`Alameda County Superior Court. A stay is warranted for two reasons. First, the
`Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976)
`abstention doctrine supports staying a later-filed federal court action pending resolution
`of an overlapping action pending in a state court, as is the case here. See also Brown v.
`Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 2015 WL 12778338, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2015) (staying
`later-filed federal action overlapping with state court action awaiting settlement
`approval). Second, the Court also has authority to stay this action under its inherent
`authority in order to conserve judicial and party resources. See CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300
`F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). A stay will undoubtedly conserve judicial and party
`resources without any prejudice to Plaintiff, who is already represented by the class in
`Hernandez and whose claims are already being litigated with anticipated final resolution
`this summer.
`This motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to Local Rule
`7-3, which took place on March 18, 2022. See Declaration of Megan Cooney ¶ 4.
`Peloton understands that Plaintiff intends to oppose this motion. Id. ¶ 5. This motion is
`based on this Notice of Motion; the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities;
`the accompanying Request for Judicial Notice; the Declaration of Megan Cooney; the
`files in these actions; argument of counsel; and such other matters as the Court may
`consider.
`
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`2
`DEFENDANT PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 20 Filed 03/30/22 Page 3 of 22 Page ID #:246
`
`Dated: March 30, 2022
`
`DANIELLE J. MOSS
`MEGAN COONEY
`LAUREN M. FISCHER
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`
`By: /s/ Megan Cooney
`Megan Cooney
`Attorneys for Defendant PELOTON
`INTERACTIVE, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`3
`DEFENDANT PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 20 Filed 03/30/22 Page 4 of 22 Page ID #:247
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ......................................... 2
`A.
`Cohen’s Claims in This Action .................................................................. 2
`B. Overlap with Hernandez ............................................................................ 3
`III. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................ 4
`A.
`The Court Should Stay This Action Under the Colorado River
`Doctrine ...................................................................................................... 4
`The Court Should Stay This Action Under its Inherent Authority .......... 11
`B.
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`iv
`DEFENDANT PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 20 Filed 03/30/22 Page 5 of 22 Page ID #:248
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Adedapoidle-Tyehimba v. Crunch LLC,
`2013 WL 1890718 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2013) ................................................ 1, 5, 9, 10
`Advanced Internet Techs., Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`2006 WL 889477 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2006) .............................................................. 13
`Bangor Hydro Elec. Co. v. Bridgewell Res. LLC,
`2011 WL 13250919 (D. Or. July 20, 2011) ............................................................. 14
`Bargas v. Rite Aid Corp.,
`2013 WL 12371614 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2013) ........................................................ 10
`Bowyer v. Ducey,
`506 F. Supp. 3d 699 (D. Ariz. 2020) .......................................................................... 6
`In re Bozic,
`888 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................. 11
`Branca v. Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc.,
`2013 WL 1344306 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2013) ............................................................ 13
`Brown v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.,
`2015 WL 12778338 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2015) ...................................................... 1, 5
`Casserly v. Power Balance, LLC,
`2011 WL 13220130 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2011) ........................................................ 14
`CMAX, Inc. v. Hall,
`300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962) .............................................................................. 11, 13
`Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. U.S.,
`424 U.S. 800 (1976) .......................................................................................... 1, 4, 10
`Darsie v. Avia Grp. Int’l, Inc.,
`36 F.3d 743 (8th Cir. 1994) ...................................................................................... 10
`Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................... 14
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`v
`DEFENDANT PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 20 Filed 03/30/22 Page 6 of 22 Page ID #:249
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Garcia v. Hollister Co.,
`2016 WL 10988791 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016) ......................................................... 14
`Gintz v. Jack In The Box, Inc.,
`2006 WL 3422222 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2006) ........................................................... 8
`Goodin v. Vendley,
`356 F. Supp. 3d 935 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ...................................................................... 10
`Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`12 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 1993) ........................................................................................ 4
`Jefferson v. Cal. Dep’t of Youth Auth.,
`28 Cal. 4th 299 (2002) ................................................................................................ 7
`Kelley v. Colonial Penn Life Ins. Co.,
`2020 WL 6150922 (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2020) .......................................................... 14
`Koval v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co.,
`2012 WL 3283428 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2021) ........................................................... 8
`Landis v. N. Am. Co.,
`299 U.S. 248 (1936) .................................................................................................. 11
`Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd.,
`593 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1979) .................................................................................... 11
`Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. IMR Contractors Corp.,
`2009 WL 1010842 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2009) .......................................................... 14
`Montgomery v. Target Corp.,
`2019 WL 8168064 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2019) ......................................................... 11
`Nakash v. Marciano,
`882 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1989) ........................................................................ 1, 4, 5, 8
`Pieterson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`2019 WL 1466963 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2019) .................................................... 12, 14
`R.R. St. & Co. Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co.,
`656 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 5, 9, 10
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`vi
`DEFENDANT PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 20 Filed 03/30/22 Page 7 of 22 Page ID #:250
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Rego v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`2012 WL 12953740 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2012) ................................................. 13, 14
`Reynolds v. Geico Corp.,
`2017 WL 815238 (D. Or. Mar. 1, 2017) ............................................................ 13, 14
`Robi v. Five Platters, Inc.,
`838 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................... 7
`Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Acton Foodservices Corp.,
`554 F. Supp. 277 (C.D. Cal. 1983) ............................................................................. 5
`Sciortino v. Pepsico, Inc.,
`108 F. Supp. 3d 780 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ........................................................................ 5
`Shine v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc.,
`23 Cal. App. 5th 1070 (2018) ..................................................................................... 7
`Slater v. Blackwood,
`15 Cal. 3d 791 (1975) ................................................................................................. 7
`Suastez v. Plastic Dress-Up Co.,
`31 Cal. 3d 774 (1982) ................................................................................................. 7
`Taylor v. AlliedBarton Sec. Servs. LP,
`2014 WL 1329415 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2014) ...................................................... 1, 5, 6
`Tovar v. Hosp. Housekeeping Sys., Inc.,
`2009 WL 10672526 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2009) ......................................................... 12
`Villacres v. ABM Indus. Inc.,
`189 Cal. App. 4th 562 (2010) ..................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`vii
`DEFENDANT PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 20 Filed 03/30/22 Page 8 of 22 Page ID #:251
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff Mark Cohen has filed a putative class action against Peloton that will be
`substantially resolved by the upcoming final settlement approval of a near-identical case
`pending in California Superior Court: Hernandez, et al. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.,
`Case Nos. RG20053333 and RG20061729 (“Hernandez”). Both Cohen and the plaintiff
`in Hernandez are pursuing claims on behalf of all non-exempt employees who worked
`for Peloton in California and allege that Peloton violated various provisions of the
`California Labor Code for failure to pay all wages, provide meal and rest breaks,
`accurate wage statements, and reimburse business expenses. What makes Cohen’s
`action different is that he filed it nearly two years after Hernandez, and after the parties’
`agreement to resolve Hernandez’s class and PAGA claims was preliminarily approved
`by the state court. Despite these facts, and the unquestionable impact the Hernandez
`settlement will have on Cohen’s claims, he has refused to stipulate to a stay pending
`final resolution of that action. See Declaration of Megan Cooney (“Cooney Decl.”) ¶ 5.
`Given the substantial overlap between this action and Hernandez, the Court should do
`what Cohen would not and stay this action pending final resolution of Hernandez.
`First, this Court should stay the action under the Colorado River abstention
`doctrine. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. U.S., 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976).
`This doctrine holds that “[w]ise judicial administration [] giving regard to conservation
`of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation” favors a federal court
`abstaining from action while overlapping litigation is pending in state court. Nakash v.
`Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411, 1415 (9th Cir. 1989). Courts routinely apply Colorado River
`to the precise facts at issue here—to stay later-filed federal actions that overlap with
`state court actions awaiting settlement approval. See, e.g., Brown v. Abercrombie &
`Fitch Co., 2015 WL 12778338, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2015); Taylor v. AlliedBarton
`Sec. Servs. LP, 2014 WL 1329415, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2014); Adedapoidle-
`Tyehimba v. Crunch LLC, 2013 WL 1890718, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2013).
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`1
`DEFENDANT PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 20 Filed 03/30/22 Page 9 of 22 Page ID #:252
`
`
`Second, even if the Court declines to apply the Colorado River doctrine, it should
`nevertheless exercise its inherent authority under principles of judicial economy and
`fairness to stay this action pending resolution of Hernandez. Requiring Cohen—who
`knowingly pursues overlapping claims purportedly on behalf of identical classes—to
`wait in line behind the Hernandez action is fundamentally fair and will not prejudice
`him in any way. While there is no harm to Cohen, and the putative class whose claims
`are being resolved in Hernandez, Peloton would be materially harmed by having to
`litigate the claims in one forum after reaching an agreement to resolve them in another.
`Not only will a stay conserve resources until Hernandez is resolved, but it will protect
`Peloton from having to litigate—and the Court from having to adjudicate—claims which
`will be disposed of in a matter of months.
`Accordingly, regardless of the authority the Court relies on, a stay of this action
`until Hernandez is fully resolved is necessary to preserve the parties’ rights and the
`integrity of the state court’s proceedings in Hernandez.
`II.
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`A. Cohen’s Claims in This Action
`Cohen was employed by Peloton as a sales associate at the Santa Monica and
`Century City showrooms from December 7, 2016 to December 15, 2021. Dkt. 1-2. On
`January 3, 2022, less than three weeks following his termination, Cohen filed this action
`against Peloton on behalf of himself and a putative class of “all current and former
`hourly, non-exempt employees who worked for [Peloton] in California” since January
`3, 2018. Dkt. 1-1, Ex. F (“FAC”) ¶ 19. Cohen seeks to represent nine subclasses,
`corresponding to the nine claims he seeks to pursue in this action. Id. ¶¶ 19 (A–I).
`Cohen alleges, on behalf of himself and the classes he seeks to represent, that Peloton:
`(1) failed to provide meal periods and meal period premium pay; (2) failed to provide
`rest breaks and rest break premium pay; (3) failed to provide accurate wage statements;
`(4) failed to pay all overtime and minimum wages; (5) failed to pay all wages for all
`time worked, including minimum wage; (6) failed to pay all accrued and vested
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`2
`DEFENDANT PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 20 Filed 03/30/22 Page 10 of 22 Page ID #:253
`
`vacation/paid time off (“PTO”); (7) failed to reimburse business expenses; (8) failed to
`timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at the time of separation of
`employment; and (9) violated the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), which is predicated
`on the same alleged Labor Code violations. Id. ¶¶ 31–93. He seeks compensatory
`damages, penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Id., Prayer for
`Relief.
`B. Overlap with Hernandez
`Meagan Hernandez (“Plaintiff Hernandez”) was formerly employed by Peloton
`as a non-exempt employee in California. See Peloton’s Request for Judicial Notice
`(“RJN”), Ex. A, Hernandez Complaint (“Hernandez Compl.”) ¶ 19. On February 4,
`2020, nearly two years before the instant action was filed, Plaintiff Hernandez filed a
`putative class action against Peloton in Alameda Superior Court on behalf of “[a]ll
`current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for [Peloton]
`within the State of California at any time during the period from four years preceding
`the filing of this complaint to final judgment and who reside in California.” Hernandez
`Compl. ¶ 14. On November 5, 2020, Plaintiff Hernandez’s action was consolidated with
`a separate action alleging violations of the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).
`RJN, Ex. C. Together, the consolidated action brings claims for (1) failure to provide
`meal periods and premium payments; (2) failure to provide rest periods and premium
`payments; (3) failure to provide compliant wage statements; (4) failure to pay overtime
`wages; (5) failure to pay minimum wages; (6) failure to timely pay wages during
`employment; (7) failure to timely pay wages upon termination; (8) failure to reimburse
`necessary business expenses; (9) violations of the UCL and PAGA; and (10) failure to
`maintain accurate payroll records. Hernandez Compl. ¶¶ 49–119.
`After participating in a mediation and reaching an agreement to resolve the
`consolidated Hernandez litigation, the Superior Court in Hernandez granted preliminary
`approval of the parties’ settlement agreement on December 2, 2021. RJN, Ex. G. The
`final approval hearing is scheduled for June 2, 2022. Id. The preliminary approval order
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`3
`DEFENDANT PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 20 Filed 03/30/22 Page 11 of 22 Page ID #:254
`
`provides for certification of the following class for settlement purposes: “all current and
`former non-exempt employees who worked for [Peloton] in the State of California at
`any time between February 4, 2016 and November 17, 2020, inclusive.” Id.; see also
`id., Ex. F, Hernandez First Amended Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement
`(“Hernandez Agr.”) ¶ 10. In addition, the court’s order approves a release of “any and
`all claims pled or which could have been pled in the Operative Complaints deriving
`from, arising out of, and/or based on the facts alleged in the Operative Complaints from
`February 4, 2016 through the date of Preliminary Approval, whether known or unknown,
`including claims for wages, penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees, restitution, and/or costs .
`. . .” Hernandez Agr. ¶ 9(cc) (also listing various Labor Code and other statutory
`provisions that are covered, without limitation, by the release).
`III. ARGUMENT
`A. The Court Should Stay This Action Under the Colorado River Doctrine
`This Court should stay this action in favor of the first-filed Hernandez action
`under the Colorado River abstention doctrine. The Colorado River abstention doctrine
`is intended to address precisely the scenario presented in this case: where overlapping
`parallel proceedings are pending in both state and federal court, and considerations
`supporting the efficient litigation of the issues in one forum warrant a stay of the
`proceedings in the other. See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 12 F.3d 908,
`912 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that the Colorado River doctrine “may counsel granting a
`stay when there are concurrent state proceedings involving the same matter as in the
`federal district court”). Under the Colorado River doctrine, a federal court may stay or
`dismiss proceedings in favor of a parallel state action for reasons of “[w]ise judicial
`administration [] giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive
`disposition of litigation.” Nakash, 882 F.2d at 1415 (citing Colorado River, 424 U.S. at
`817).
`Courts within the Ninth Circuit consider eight factors when deciding whether to
`apply the Colorado River doctrine: “(1) which court first assumed jurisdiction over [the
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`4
`DEFENDANT PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 20 Filed 03/30/22 Page 12 of 22 Page ID #:255
`
`case]; (2) the inconvenience of the federal forum; (3) the desire to avoid piecemeal
`litigation; (4) the order in which the forums obtained jurisdiction; (5) whether federal
`law or state law provides the rule of decision on the merits; (6) whether the state court
`proceedings can adequately protect the rights of the federal litigants; (7) the desire to
`avoid forum shopping; and (8) whether the state court proceedings will resolve all issues
`before the federal court.” Sciortino v. Pepsico, Inc., 108 F. Supp. 3d 780, 814–15 (N.D.
`Cal. 2015) (citing R.R. St. & Co. Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966, 978–79 (9th Cir.
`2011)). Courts have substantial discretion in this analysis and no single factor is
`determinative—instead, the factors “are to be applied in a pragmatic and flexible way,
`as part of a balancing process rather than as a ‘mechanical checklist.’” Nakash, 882 F.2d
`at 1415. Courts routinely apply Colorado River abstention to stay later-filed federal
`actions that overlap with pending state court actions awaiting settlement approval. See,
`e.g., Brown, 2015 WL 12778338, at *6; Taylor, 2014 WL 1329415, at *9; Adedapoidle-
`Tyehimba, 2013 WL 1890718, at *4.
`That is the precise outcome warranted here. Both cases are brought against
`Peloton by former non-exempt employees who seek to represent the same broad class of
`Peloton non-exempt employees in California during largely overlapping time periods
`and substantially identical claims. Accordingly, each of the Colorado River factors
`weighs in favor of a short stay of this action pending final resolution of Hernandez,
`which is anticipated to occur in June.
`The first and fourth factors, which consider which court first assumed
`jurisdiction, support abstention because the state court action was filed almost two years
`before Cohen filed his claim in January 2022. Compare Dkt. 1-1, Ex. F, with RJN, Ex.
`A. The “fact that state court jurisdiction was invoked first weighs heavily towards
`justifying a stay or dismissal of the parallel federal action.” Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v.
`Acton Foodservices Corp., 554 F. Supp. 277, 280–81 (C.D. Cal. 1983). Moreover, not
`only did the state court assume jurisdiction first, but the court has all but resolved that
`case—supervising discovery, directing the parties to mediate the case, and granting
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`5
`DEFENDANT PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 20 Filed 03/30/22 Page 13 of 22 Page ID #:256
`
`preliminary approval of the class and PAGA settlement. See RJN, Ex. G; Cooney Decl.
`¶ 2.
`
`The second factor, which looks to the inconvenience of the forum, is largely
`irrelevant because the proposed class consists of current and former non-exempt
`employees throughout the state of California, so neither this Court nor Alameda County
`Superior Court is more convenient than the other. See Taylor, 2014 WL 1329415, at
`*11 (granting stay where convenience factor was neutral).
`The third, sixth, and eighth factors—avoiding piecemeal litigation, whether the
`state court proceedings can adequately protect the rights of the federal litigants, and
`whether the state court proceedings will resolve issues before the federal court—all
`weigh heavily in favor of deferring to the state court proceeding. “Piecemeal litigation
`occurs when different tribunals consider the same issue, thereby duplicating efforts and
`possibly reaching different results.” Id. at *10. Crucially, because the Hernandez action
`seeks to settle the claims asserted by Cohen on behalf of a virtually identical putative
`class, litigation of those claims necessarily affects the same issues Cohen seeks to bring
`here and creates the certainty for duplication. Compare FAC ¶ 19 (“[A]ll current and
`former hourly, non-exempt employees who worked for [Peloton] in California at any
`time from at least four years prior to filing this action and through the present.”), with
`Hernandez Agr. ¶ 10 (“[A]ll current and former non-exempt employees who worked for
`[Peloton] in the State of California at any time between February 4, 2016 and November
`17, 2020, inclusive.”). The actions largely rely on the same factual allegations, assert
`substantially identical claims, and seek duplicative remedies. The small differences in
`the claims at issue in both actions create no jurisdictional impediments to the state court
`considering those claims. See Bowyer v. Ducey, 506 F. Supp. 3d 699, 714 (D. Ariz.
`2020) (that “there is no concern that the state is unable to adjudicate [p]laintiffs’ . . .
`claims” weighs in favor of abstention). In fact, Plaintiff’s claims overlap with or fit
`squarely within the claims to be settled in state court.
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`6
`DEFENDANT PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 20 Filed 03/30/22 Page 14 of 22 Page ID #:257
`
`
`This also extends to Cohen’s claim for failure to properly pay accrued vacation or
`paid time off, even though that claim is not expressly pursued in the Hernandez
`complaint. Cohen’s claim for unpaid vacation falls squarely within the Hernandez
`release, which extinguishes “any and all claims pled or which could have been pled . . .
`pursuant to [various] California Labor Code sections” including “claims for wages.”
`Hernandez Agr. ¶ 9(cc) (emphases added); see also Suastez v. Plastic Dress-Up Co., 31
`Cal. 3d 774, 779 (1982) (“It is established that vacation pay is not a gratuity or a gift,
`but is, in effect, additional wages for services performed.”).1 As a release of “all claims
`and causes of action” “must be given a comprehensive scope” (Jefferson v. Cal. Dep’t
`of Youth Auth., 28 Cal. 4th 299, 306 (2002)), the Hernandez release encompasses claims
`related to allegedly unpaid vacation or paid time off as Cohen contends those are unpaid
`wages (see FAC ¶¶ 68, 71). Moreover, Cohen’s vacation pay claim arises from the same
`primary right at issue in Hernandez—the right to be paid all allegedly unpaid wages. See
`Slater v. Blackwood, 15 Cal. 3d 791, 795 (1975) (“[T]he invasion of one primary right
`gives rise to a single cause of action.”). Under California law, a final judgment on the
`merits bars future litigation of claims based on the same “primary right,” not just
`identical causes of action. See Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, 324 (9th Cir.
`1988). Because the “primary right” implicated in both Hernandez and this action is the
`right to be paid all “wages due,” a final judgment in Hernandez will preclude Cohen’s
`claim for unpaid vacation. See Shine v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 23 Cal. App. 5th 1070,
`1077 (2018) (finding that res judicata applied even though “no claim for reporting-time
`pay was alleged in [the previous wage and hour class action lawsuit]” because “the same
`primary right, to seek payment of wages due, was involved in both [the prior class action]
`and this case”).
`
`
` 1 “A general release—covering ‘all claims’ that were or could have been raised in the
`suit—is not uncommon in class action settlements.” Villacres v. ABM Indus. Inc.,
`189 Cal. App. 4th 562, 588 (2010) (collecting cases where courts have approved such
`class settlement releases as proper).
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`7
`DEFENDANT PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 20 Filed 03/30/22 Page 15 of 22 Page ID #:258
`
`
`Nonetheless, for purposes of a stay, “[e]xact parallelism” between the actions is
`not required. Nakash, 882 F.2d at 1416. Rather, the actions need only be “substantially
`similar” to be deemed parallel for the purposes of abstention. Id. And “[t]he mere
`presence of additional parties or issues in one of the cases will not necessarily preclude
`a finding that they are parallel.” Gintz v. Jack In The Box, Inc., 2006 WL 3422222, at
`*3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2006) (emphasis added). Here, the cases rest on overlapping
`factual allegations; are brought against the same defendant; purport to represent similar
`classes; and assert substantially identical California Labor Code claims. Given the
`duplicative factual allegations, legal claims, and relief sought, this action and Hernandez
`are sufficiently similar to trigger the Colorado River doctrine. See Koval v. Pac. Bell
`Tel. Co., 2012 WL 3283428, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2021) (staying case “[a]lthough
`the federal action cite violations of statutes not included in the state action” because
`“both actions assert similar factual allegations, and the ‘crux’ of the cases is the same”).
`Claim
`Cohen
`Hernandez
`“[A]ll current and former non-exempt
`Class
`“[A]ll current and former hourly,
`employees who worked for [Peloton]
`Definition
`non-exempt
`employees who
`in the State of California” between
`worked for [Peloton] in California”
`February 4, 2016 and November 17,
`since January 3, 2018. FAC ¶ 19.
`2020. Hernandez Agr. ¶ 10.
`Yes. “Defendants . . . required
`Plaintiffs and the other class members
`to work during meal periods” and
`failed
`to pay
`the “meal period
`premium.” Hernandez Compl. ¶ 65.
`Yes. Defendants “required [class
`members]
`to work during
`rest
`periods” and failed to pay the “rest
`period premium.” Hernandez Compl.
`¶ 75.
`Yes. “Defendants . . . failed to
`provide
`[class members] with
`complete
`and
`accurate wage
`statements”
`including
`the “hours
`worked.” Hernandez Compl. ¶ 98.
`
`Yes.
` “Defendants failed [to]
`provide[] off-duty meal periods . . .
`[and] regularly failed to pay the
`meal period premium for missed
`meal periods.” FAC ¶ 32.
`Yes. “Defendants failed . . . [to]
`provide[] off-duty rest periods . . .
`[and] failed to pay such premium
`compensation.” FAC ¶ 37.
`
`Meal
`Period
`
`Rest
`Break
`
`Wage
`Statement
`
`Yes. “Defendants failed . . . to
`provide accurate itemized wage
`statements” including identifying
`the hours worked. FAC ¶¶ 44–45.
`
`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
`