Popejoy v. Circle K Stores, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 HEATHER POPEJOY, on behalf of CASE NO. 1:19-CV-1777 AWI BAM herself and other similarly situated, 7 Plaintiff ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION 8 FOR DISMISSAL, ORDER CLOSING v. CASE AS MOOT, and ORDER 9 VACATING HEARING AND DENYING CIRCLE K STORES, INC., a Delaware MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT 10 Corporation, and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, 11 Defendant (Doc. Nos. 18, 21) 12 13 14 This putative class action involving violations of the California Labor Code and California 15 Business & Professions Code was removed by Defendant on December 20, 2019. On April 13, 16 2020, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. See Doc. No. 18. Hearing on the motion to dismiss is 17 set for May 11, 2020. 18 On May 1, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss this case. See Doc. No. 21. The 19 stipulation is signed by counsel for both parties and is purportedly made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 20 P. 41(a)(1). See id. In relevant part, the stipulation states that the “Parties hereby stipulate and 21 agree that the matter between them has been resolved, and [pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)], the Parties 22 stipulate and agree that this action should be immediately dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiff’s 23 individual claims only, and dismissed without prejudice as to the claims of the putative class 24 members . . . .” Id. 25 Dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1), when properly filed, are effective immediately and do not 26 require a court order/court approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1); Yesh Music v. Lakewood 27 Church, 727 F.3d 356, 362 (5th Cir. 2013); Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 28 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999). Because the stipulation has been properly presented by the parties, 1 Popejoy’s individual claims have terminated automatically with prejudice. See id. The Court will 2 order the Clerk to recognize the automatic dismissal. 3 With respect to the attempt to dismiss the class claims without prejudice, typically 4 dismissal of class claims requires the parties to follow Rule 23(e) and provide the Court with 5 various information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e); Diaz v. Trust Territory of Pac. Islands, 876 F.2d 6 1401, 1408 (9th Cir. 1989); Choo v. Wellnx Life Scis., Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181959, *2 7 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2019). The parties did not follow Rule 23(e), so the purported Rule 41 8 dismissal of the class action claims are ineffective. 9 Nevertheless, the Court reads the “resolved” language of the stipulation, in combination 10 with the dismissal with prejudice, as indicating that the parties have fully settled all the individual 11 harms suffered by Popejoy that are reflected in the Complaint. The Ninth Circuit has held that a 12 “suit brought as a class action must as a general rule be dismissed for mootness when the personal 13 claims of all named plaintiffs are satisfied and no class has been properly certified.” Employers- 14 Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust Fund v. Anchor Capital Advisors, 498 F.3d 920, 15 924 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Kuahulu v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 557 F.2d 1334, 1336-37 (9th 16 Cir. 1977). In light of the Court’s reading of the dismissal, this case fits within the general rule 17 recognized in Employers Teamsters. That is, because Popejoy’s personal claims have been 18 resolved and no class has been certified, this case is now moot. See Employers-Teamsters, 498 19 F.3d at 924.1 Therefore, the Court will dismiss the purported class claims as moot, deny the 20 motion to dismiss as moot, vacate the May 11, 2020 hearing date, and order the Clerk to close this 21 case. 22 23 ORDER 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. The clerk shall terminate Plaintiff Heather Popejoy in light of the parties’ properly filed 26 Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with prejudice; 27 1 If the Court has misunderstood the stipulation such that Employers-Teamsters does not apply to this case, then the 28 parties shall file a motion for reconsideration and be prepared to file additional information needed for purposes of WwAOe tGUVOVEE EECA ROPAIVE RYUUUEIOCPIL Ce PR He POY VU VI 1 }2. This case is DISMISSED as moot; 2 13, The May 11, 2020 hearing date is VACATED; 3 Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 18) is DENIED as moot; and 4 |5. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. □□ |Dated: _May 5, 2020 7 □ 7 Cb Lec _-SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28