Smith v. Superior Farms ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Ryan Smith, No. 2:20-cv-01778-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Superior Farms, 1S Defendant. 16 17 The court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated request to dismiss this action under Federal 18 | Rule of Civil Procedure 41, ECF No. 18. The court grants the request to dismiss. As provided 19 | by the stipulation the court dismisses with prejudice plaintiff Ryan Smith’s individual claims. 20 | However, the putative class and collective action claims asserted in the complaint, ECF No. 1, are 21 | dismissed without prejudice. The court is satisfied that dismissal does not prejudice the 22 | putative class, given this case is only a year old and there is nothing in the record indicating class 23 | members are likely to have relied on this action to vindicate their interests. See Del Rio v. 24 | CreditAnswers, LLC, No. 10-346, 2011 WL 1869881, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 16, 2011) (the court 25 | may consider “‘whether the proposed settlement and dismissal are tainted by collusion or will 26 | prejudice absent putative members with a reasonable reliance expectation of the maintenance of 27 | the action for the protection of their interests,’” and the court may “‘inquire into possible 28 | prejudice from... lack of adequate time for class members to file other actions, because of a 1 | rapidly approaching statute of limitations.’” (quoting Diaz v. Trust Territory of Pac. Islands, 2 | 876 F.2d 1401, 1407-08 & n.3 (9th Cir. 1989))); see, e.g., Castro v. Zenith Acquisition Corp., 3 | No. 06-04163, 2007 WL 81905, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2007). All parties are to bear their own 4 | costs and fees. 5 The motion for approval of settlement is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed 6 | toclose the case. 7 This order resolves ECF Nos. 15 & 18. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 DATED: November 17, 2021. [\ (] 10 l ti / { q_/ "1 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45