Carrick v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

1

GABRIELLE E CARRICK, Plaintiff, v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., Defendant.

No. 23-cv-04233-SVK

United States District Court, N.D. California

December 21, 2023

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY RE: DKT. NO 12

SUSAN VAN KEULEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Gabrielle Carrick commenced this putative class action against Defendant Peloton Interactive, Inc. (“Peloton”), alleging that Peloton violated several provisions of the California Labor Code (the “CLC”) in connection with its employment of Plaintiff and the members of Plaintiff's putative class. See Dkt. 3, Ex. A (the “Complaint”). It turns out that this is now at least the third lawsuit pending against Peloton alleging substantially the same violations of law stemming from substantially the same conduct. In light of these earlier-filed, overlapping actions, Peloton moves to dismiss or stay this action under the “first-to-file” rule. See Dkt. 12 (the “Motion”). Plaintiff opposes the Motion. See Dkt 17 (the “Opposition”). Peloton filed a reply. See Dkt. 20. All necessary parties-Plaintiff and Peloton-have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.^[1] See Dkts. 14, 19. The Court has determined that the Motion is suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). After considering the Parties' briefing, relevant law and the record in this action, and for the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the Motion and STAYS this action.

I. BACKGROUND

Peloton currently faces at least three actions alleging it violated the CLC.^[2]

A. The Cohen Action

Originally filed in California state court on January 3, 2022, the first action is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. See Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., No. 22-cv-01425-MFW, Dkt. 1 (C.D. Cal.); Dkt. 12-3, Ex. A (the “Cohen Complaint”). In the Cohen action, the plaintiff asserts 10 causes of action against Peloton and 50 Doe defendants based on violations of the CLC and the California Unfair Competition Law (the “CUCL”), stemming from Peloton's alleged failure to comply with the requirements of the CLC in connection with its employment of the plaintiff and the members of his putative class. See Cohen Complaint ¶¶ 31-103. He seeks to certify the following class: “[A]ll current and former hourly, non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants [i.e., Peloton and Doe defendants] in California at any time from at least four years prior to filing this action [i.e., January 3, 2018] and through the present (the Class).” See Id. ¶ 19. He also seeks to certify nine subclasses. See id.

The parties in the Cohen action have reached a settlement in principle and intend to seek court approval of their settlement upon execution of a settlement agreement. See Cohen, No. 22-cv-01425-MFW, Dkt. 49 at 2-3. It is not clear whether or how this settlement would impact the claims asserted in this action.

B. The McKinnon Action

Originally filed in California state court on April 15, 2022, the second action is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. See McKinnon v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., No. 22-cv-03368-MFW, Dkt. 1 (C.D. Cal.); Dkt. 12-3, Ex. B (the “McKinnon Complaint”). In the McKinnon action, the plaintiffs assert nine causes of action against Peloton and 50 Doe defendants based on violations of the CLC and the Fair Labor Standards Act, stemming from Peloton's alleged failure to comply with the requirements of those statutes in connection with its employment of the plaintiffs and the members of their putative class. See McKinnon Complaint ¶¶ 95-173. They seek to certify the following class: “All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees employed by Defendant [i.e., Peloton] at one of Defendant's warehouse locations in California including Treadmill Specialists, Assemblers, Warehouse Associates, Tread Operations, Drivers, Warehouse Associates, Master Technicians, Field Operations Leads, and other similar positions, at any time starting November 18, 2020 until resolution of this action.” See Id. ¶ 82. They also seek to certify seven subclasses. See Id. ¶¶ 8391.

On May 19, 2022, the McKinnon court transferred the action to the Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald who was already presiding over the Cohen action. See McKinnon, No. 22-cv-03368-MFW, Dkt. 11. The court listed two “reason[s] for transfer as indicated by counsel”: (1) the two actions “[a]rise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings or events;” and (2) the two actions “[c]all for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact.”^[3] Id. The McKinnon court subsequently stayed that action in light of the Cohen action.^[4] See id., Dkts. 45, 55.

C. This Action

Originally filed in California state court on June 16, 2023, the instant action was removed to this Court on August 18, 2023. See Dkt. 1. In this action, Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action against Peloton and 100 Doe defendants based on violations of the CLC and the CUCL, stemming from Peloton's alleged failure to comply with the requirements of the CLC in connection with its employment of Plaintiff and the members of her putative class. See Complaint ¶¶ 41-100. She seeks to certify nine different classes^[5], all of which effectively constitute subclasses to the following overarching class: “All current and former hourly non-exempt employees employed by Defendants [i.e., Peloton and Doe defendants] as direct employees as well as temporary employees employed through temp agencies in California[.]” See Id. ¶ 39.

D. Overlap Between The Three Actions^[6]

The following chart illustrates the overlap between the claims asserted in the instant action and the claims asserted in the Cohen and McKinnon actions:

Claim
                                                    Asserted In
                                                    This
                                                    Action
Asserted
                                                    In
                                                    Cohen
Action
Asserted
                                                    In
                                                    McKinnon
Action?
                                                    Failure To Pay
                                                    Overtime Wages
                                                    (CLC
                                                    §§
                                                    510, 1194)
                                                    (Complaint
                                                    ¶¶
                                                    41-50)
                                                  
Yes
(Cohen
                                                    Complaint
                                                    ¶¶
                                                    4751)
                                                  
Yes
(McKinnon
                                                    Complaint
                                                    ¶¶
                                                    125-36)
                                                  
                                                    Failure To
                                                    Authorize Or
                                                    Permit Meal
                                                    Periods (CLC
                                                    §§
                                                    226.7, 512)
                                                    (Complaint
                                                    ¶¶
                                                    51-59)
                                                  
Yes
(Cohen
                                                    Complaint
                                                    ¶¶
                                                    3135)
                                                  
Yes
(McKinnon
                                                    Complaint
                                                    ¶¶
                                                    105-15)
                                                  
                                                    Failure To
                                                    Authorize Or
                                                    Permit Rest
                                                    Periods (CLC
                                                    § 226.7)
                                                    (Complaint
                                                    ¶¶
                                                    60-68)
                                                  
Yes
(Cohen
                                                    Complaint
                                                    ¶¶ 36
                                                  
                                                    42)
                                                  
Yes
(McKinnon
                                                    Complaint
                                                    ¶¶
                                                    116-24)
                                                  
                                                    Failure To
                                                    Indemnify
                                                    Employment-Related
                                                    Expenses (CLC
                                                    § 2802)
                                                    (Complaint

...