Becerra v. Target Corporation
Emanuel Becerra, Marijke Myland, Krista Ivy, David Harris, Tina McBride, and Leslie Cusse, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Target Corporation
- Donovan Frank
- 0:25-cv-00535
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 9
In Becerra v. Target Corporation, Judge Donovan W. Frank dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' proposed nationwide Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective overtime claim because it substantially duplicated an earlier-filed lawsuit, Babbitt v. Target Corp., that is also pending before the same judge.
Current and former Target Executive Team Leaders (ETLs) who were not part of the earlier Babbitt or Jibowu collective actions and were seeking to join a new nationwide FLSA overtime collective. Also relevant to plaintiffs' counsel and to employers defending parallel wage-and-hour collective actions.
What happened
In Becerra v. Target Corporation (Civil No. 25-535), six current and former Target employees called Executive Team Leaders (ETLs) filed a lawsuit — along with others they sought to represent — claiming Target wrongly classified them as exempt from overtime pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the wage laws of California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, and Minnesota. However, a nearly identical federal overtime lawsuit involving the same type of Target employees, Babbitt v. Target Corp., had already been filed in February 2020, was conditionally certified as a collective action with over 3,500 opt-in members, and has been actively litigated before the same judge.
Target moved to dismiss the FLSA collective action claim in this newer case, arguing it was a duplicate of the Babbitt lawsuit. The plaintiffs argued their proposed class was different because it excluded people who had already joined Babbitt or a related case called Jibowu. The court found this distinction insufficient, noting that over 7,000 of the roughly 10,000 people who could fall within the new proposed class had already received notice in Babbitt, and that sending overlapping notices to thousands of workers would cause confusion and waste resources.
Judge Frank applied the 'first-filed rule,' a legal principle providing that when two lawsuits substantially overlap, the court where the first case was filed has priority. The judge concluded that the rule applied here even though both cases are before the same judge in the same court, because the core rationales of the rule — conserving resources, promoting efficient resolution, and avoiding confusion among potential class members — all pointed toward dismissal. The FLSA collective action claim (Count One) was dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled as a collective action. The court clarified that the plaintiffs' six state-law overtime claims may continue, and that individual ETLs who never received notice in Babbitt or Jibowu are not barred from pursuing their own individual FLSA claims.
The detailed version
- Becerra v. Target Corporation, Civil No. 25-535 (DWF/ECW)
- Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge
- October 29, 2025
Parties and Claims
Plaintiffs Emanuel Becerra, Marijke Myland, Krista Ivy, David Harris, Tina McBride, and Leslie Cusse are current and former Target Executive Team Leaders (ETLs) who allege Target misclassified them as 'exempt' employees not entitled to overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and under the wage-and-hour laws of California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, and Minnesota. They sought to represent a nationwide FLSA collective of all ETLs (excluding certain sub-positions) employed from February 10, 2022, to the present, explicitly excluding anyone who had already opted into the parallel actions Babbitt v. Target Corp. (No. 20-490) or Jibowu v. Target Corp. (No. 24-cv-4189).
Prior Litigation Background
In February 2020, a separate group of ETLs represented by the same plaintiffs' counsel filed Babbitt v. Target Corp. in the same court. In March 2022, the Babbitt court (Judge Frank) conditionally certified a nationwide FLSA collective of ETLs who worked for Target on or after July 20, 2018. Notice was sent to over 15,000 potential members; over 3,500 opted in, including some of the named plaintiffs in the current case (Myland and Becerra). Extensive post-certification discovery has proceeded since early 2024. In August 2024, the Babbitt plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to add state-law claims; the court denied the motion but expressly noted a separate state-law action would not be precluded. The day the lead plaintiff in the current action (Messeck) withdrew from Babbitt — February 10, 2025 — this lawsuit was filed.
Target's Motion
Target moved to dismiss or stay the FLSA collective action claim (Count One) under the 'first-filed rule,' and separately moved to dismiss plaintiff Nicholas Raddatz. The Raddatz issue was mooted by a subsequent Second Amended Complaint (SAC) that removed Raddatz and added McBride and Cusse.
Legal Standard — First-Filed Rule
The first-filed rule provides that when two federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over substantially the same parties and issues, the court in which the action was first filed has priority. Northwestern Airlines, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc., 989 F.2d 1002, 1005 (8th Cir. 1993). The rule's purposes are conserving judicial resources and avoiding conflicting rulings. The rule does not require precise overlap and is not intended to be rigid or inflexible. Compelling circumstances can override it. When applicable, the court may dismiss, stay, or transfer the second-filed action.
Court's Analysis:
- Substantial overlap: The Babbitt and Becerra actions name the same defendant (Target), involve the same ETL positions, allege the same FLSA misclassification theory, and seek the same remedies (unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages). The time periods overlap. Target showed that over 10,000 ETLs would fall within the Becerra proposed collective and that over 7,000 of those had already received Babbitt notice. Conditional certification of a second collective would trigger duplicative notice to thousands of workers, risking confusion — a recognized basis for dismissal under case law. The court cited Castillo v. Taco Bell of Am., LLC, 960 F. Supp. 2d 401 (E.D.N.Y. 2013), and Walker v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2003 WL 21056704 (W.D. Wash. 2003).
- Same court, same judge: Plaintiffs argued the first-filed rule does not apply when both actions are before the same judge. The court acknowledged some authority recognizing that the rule's rationale may be less compelling in that scenario, but held that the case law does not limit the rule exclusively to actions in different courts. The court cited cases applying the rule to overlapping FLSA collectives in the same district, including Mosley v. Hydrostatic Oil Tools, Inc., 2021 WL 3134917 (W.D. Ark. 2021); Lewis v. Tiger Eye Pizza, LLC, 2020 WL 6298075 (W.D. Ark. 2020); and Burns v. County of Nassau, 337 F. Supp. 3d 210 (E.D.N.Y. 2018).
- No compelling circumstances: Plaintiffs did not demonstrate compelling circumstances that would override the first-filed rule.
- Equitable considerations: The court noted but did not resolve separately Target's argument that plaintiffs' counsel made a representation in Babbitt that any new filing would not include FLSA claims; the first-filed rule analysis alone was sufficient to dismiss.
Ruling
Target's motion to dismiss the FLSA collective claim is GRANTED. Count One of the SAC — the FLSA collective action claim — is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (meaning it cannot be refiled as a collective action in this case). The six state-law overtime claims (Counts Two through Seven) are not dismissed and may proceed. Individual ETLs who never received notice in Babbitt or Jibowu retain the right to pursue their own individual FLSA claims.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.