Cisneros v. Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies

Background

Manuel Cisneros filed a proposed class action against Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies, Inc. He alleges that the company violated California wage-and-hour laws by failing to pay him for all time worked, provide legally required rest breaks, pay wages on time, reimburse business expenses, pay wages due at termination, maintain accurate records, and provide accurate wage statements. He also brings claims on his own behalf alleging retaliation, wrongful termination, discrimination, and wrongful termination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. The complaint seeks civil penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act.

Cisneros alleges that he worked for the defendant as an hourly, non-exempt utility driver from April 27, 2015, through December 4, 2023. He filed the action in Contra Costa Superior Court on December 16, 2024. The defendant removed it to federal court on April 28, 2025, based on diversity jurisdiction.

The Motion

Vestis moved to dismiss or, alternatively, stay the case under the first-to-file rule. That rule allows a federal court, in appropriate circumstances, to dismiss, stay, or transfer a later-filed case when a substantially similar case was previously filed in another federal district court. Courts consider the timing of the lawsuits, the similarity of the parties, and the similarity of the issues.

Vestis relied on three earlier wage-and-hour class actions: Deluna, which was pending in state court, and Fernandez and Brown, which were pending in the Central District of California and had been consolidated for pretrial purposes. After briefing on this motion was complete, the parties in Fernandez and Brown reached a global settlement agreement that would resolve those cases if approved under the class-action settlement process. The court in those cases vacated class-certification deadlines and allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint.

Vestis argued that the earlier cases were duplicative because they involved similar California Labor Code claims against what Vestis characterized as the same employer, Vestis Services, LLC. Vestis asserted that Vestis Services, LLC was Cisneros’s actual employer and should be treated as the defendant in this case. Cisneros disputed that assertion and argued that his case involved a different defendant and different proposed class members.

Court’s Analysis

The court first ruled that the first-to-file rule could not be based on Deluna because that earlier case was pending in state court. The court explained that the rule applies only when the first-filed action is pending in another federal district court. It therefore analyzed the motion based on Fernandez and Brown.

The court found that the chronology factor favored applying the rule because Cisneros filed this case after Fernandez and Brown. But it found that the parties were not substantially similar. In a class action, the relevant comparison is generally between the proposed classes rather than only the named plaintiffs. The court noted that Fernandez and Brown named Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC—now known as Vestis Services, LLC—as the defendant, while this case names Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies, Inc. The proposed class in this case consists of similarly situated employees of Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies, Inc. in California. The proposed class in Fernandez and Brown consists of current and former non-exempt employees of Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC, now known as Vestis Services, LLC, who were assigned to specified workplaces or divisions since July 12, 2020.

The court declined to disregard Cisneros’s allegations that Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies, Inc. was his employer and to treat Vestis Services, LLC as the operative defendant based only on Vestis’s assertion. For purposes of this motion, the court treated Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies, Inc. as the only defendant in the case. The court also declined to use corporate filing documents to resolve the disputed employer issue because the first-to-file analysis had to be based on the pleadings as they currently existed. The court stated that an early motion for summary adjudication on the employer issue might be appropriate if the facts later supported Vestis’s position, and that such a finding could change the first-to-file analysis.

The court also found that the issues were not substantially similar. This case concerns alleged employment practices by Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies, Inc., while Fernandez and Brown concern alleged employment practices by Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC, now known as Vestis Services, LLC. Because the complaints did not place the same employer’s practices at issue, the court found no substantial overlap creating a risk of inefficiency or conflicting decisions.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied Vestis’s motion to dismiss or stay under the first-to-file rule. The order terminated docket number 18. The court also granted Vestis’s requests for judicial notice of specified court filings and of the fact that certain certificates had been filed with the California Secretary of State, but it declined to consider statements in those certificates as proof that Vestis Services, LLC was Cisneros’s actual employer.

The court set a case management conference for March 17, 2026, and directed the parties to submit a joint case management statement by March 10, 2026.