Nipper v. Alder Holdings LLC ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH NIPPER, individually and on behalf of Case No. 1:23-cv-01239-CDB all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF Plaintiff, 13 COURT TO CLOSE CASE PURSUANT v. TO RULE 41(a)(1) OF THE FEDERAL 14 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ALDER HOLDINGS LLC, 15 (Doc. 17) Defendant. 16 17 18 On August 18, 2023, Plaintiff Joseph Nipper (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative complaint in 19 which he asserts claims on behalf of himself and a putative class against Defendant Alder 20 Holdings LLC (“Defendant”). (Doc. 1). Defendant filed an answer to the complaint on October 21 9, 2023. (Doc. 6). 22 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to voluntarily dismiss this action 23 without prejudice. (Doc. 17). As the parties’ stipulation of dismissal comports with the 24 requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff is entitled to dismiss his individual 25 claims (at least) without court order. In a class action, however, court approval of dismissal may 26 be required under Rule 41(a)(2) if the class has been certified. Specifically, Rule 23(e) provides 27 that any claims arising out of either a (1) “certified class” or (2) “class proposed to be certified for 28 purposes of settlement ... may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the 1 | court's approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (emphasis added). In this case, the parties jointly seek to 2 | dismiss the putative class claims pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) without prejudice. (Doc. 17 at 2). No 3 | class has been certified, Plaintiff has not sought certification, nor has certification been proposed 4 | for purposes of settlement. 5 Because no class has been certified in this case, and because any dismissal would not 6 | affect putative class members’ claims, Rule 23(e) does not mandate either Court approval of the 7 | parties’ settlement or notice to putative class members. See Titus v. BlueChip Financial, 786 Fed. 8 | Appx. 694, 695 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Because no class has been certified, Titus is the only plaintiff 9 | before the court; once she has dismissed her claims with prejudice, no other plaintiff can step into 10 | her shoes to continue this legal action”) (unpublished) (citing Emp ’rs-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 11 & 505 Pension Tr. Fund vy. Anchor Capital Advisors, 498 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2007)). 12 In light of the parties’ filing that is consistent with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)Gi) and the Court’s 13 | finding above that under the circumstances, Rule 23(e) does not require Court approval of the 14 | dismissal, this action has been terminated by operation of law without further order of the Court. 15 | Comm. Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 1999). 16 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to CLOSE the file in this 17 | case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 18 | 41(a)(1)(A)qi). 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: _ December 20, 2023 | Ww VV KD 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28