Rocha v. McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JOHN ROCHA, as an individual and on CASE NO. 1:18-CV-1550 AWI SAB behalf of all other similarly situated non- 9 exempt and current employees, ORDER REGARDING RULE 41(a)(1) 10 Plaintiff STIPULATION 11 v. (Doc. No. 7) 12 MCDONALDS’S RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., et cet., 13 Defendants 14 15 16 This is a putative class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff John Rocha (“Rocha”) against 17 Defendants McDondald’s Restaurants of California, Inc. and McDonald’s USA, LLC 18 (“McDonalds”). On December 2, 2020, the parties filed a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation to 19 dismiss this matter with prejudice. See Doc. No. 7. The stipulation states that there was a 20 negotiated settlement in a state court class action case in Los Angeles County (Sanchez v. 21 McDonald’s Restaurants of California BC499888), the stipulation was reached on October 5, 22 2020, and that Rocha is a member of the Sanchez class. 23 Generally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) requires court to approve a proposed voluntary dismissal 24 of a class claim even before the class has been certified. See Choo v. Wellnx Life Scis., Inc., 2019 25 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181959, *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2019); see also Diaz v. Trust Territory of Pac. 26 Islands, 876 F.2d 1401, 1408 (9th Cir. 1989). However, the stipulation indicates that the Sanchez 27 case likely encompasses the class claims made in this case. At minimum, the stipulation clearly 28 shows that all claims by Rocha, the only class representative named, are now moot. 1 The Ninth Circuit has held that a “suit brought as a class action must as a general rule be 2 | dismissed for mootness when the personal claims of all named plaintiffs are satisfied and no class 3 |has been properly certified.” Employers-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust Fund v. 4 | Anchor Capital Advisors, 498 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Kuahulu v. Employers Ins. 5 |of Wausau, 557 F.2d 1334, 1336-37 (9th Cir. 1977). Here, no class has been certified, nor has a 6 | motion to certify a class been filed. Given the Sanchez class action, the Court is unaware of any 7 |reason why the general rule of Employers-Teamsters should not apply. Therefore, because 8 | Rocha’s claims are moot, the Court will not require any additional briefing prior to voluntary 9 |dismissal. Instead, the Court recognizes the stipulation and will order the Clerk to close this 10 | matter. 11 12 ORDER 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, in light of the parties Rule 41(a)(1) 14 stipulation for dismissal (Doc. No. 7), and the settlement reached in the Sanchez class action, this 15 |case has terminated, and the Clerk shall CLOSE this case. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1g Dated: _ December 15, 2020 —= Z : Cb it — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28