Cortez v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY CORTEZ, individually and on Case No. 1:23-cv-00317-ADA-CDB behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF Plaintiffs, 13 COURT TO CLOSE CASE AND v. ADJUST THE DOCKET TO REFLECT 14 VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., TO RULE 41(a)(1) OF THE FEDERAL 15 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Defendant. 16 (Doc. 13) 17 18 This action was removed from Kern County Superior Court on March 2, 2023. (Doc. 1). 19 The parties agreed to extend Defendant’s time to respond to the complaint (Docs. 6, 7, 10). 20 However, Defendant did not answer or file a pre-answer motion; instead, the parties filed a Notice 21 of Settlement on June 20, 2023, in which they represented they had executed a written settlement 22 agreement. (Doc. 12). Pending before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal, filed on 23 June 26, 2023 (Doc. 13), in which the parties stipulate to dismiss Plaintiff’s individual claims 24 with prejudice and putative class members’ claims without prejudice. 25 Here, Plaintiff is entitled to dismiss his individual claims (at least) without court order on 26 two independent bases. First, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss his 27 action with a mere notice anytime before the opposing party has answered or filed a motion for 28 summary judgment. Second, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) separately permits a plaintiff to 1 In a class action, however, court approval of dismissal may be required under Rule 2 | 41(a)(2) if the class has been certified. Specifically, Rule 23(e) provides that any claims arising 3 | out of either a (1) “certified class” or (2) “class proposed to be certified for purposes of 4 | settlement ... may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the cour’'s 5 | approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (emphasis added). 6 In this case, the parties jointly seek to dismiss the putative class claims under Rule 7 | 41(a)(1) without prejudice. This case is in the initial stages, and thus, Plaintiff has not sought 8 | certification. Indeed, as noted above, Defendant has not answered and the case has not convened 9 | for a scheduling conference. Thus, while the case is a putative class action, no class has yet been 10 | certified, nor is certification being proposed for purposes of settlement. 11 Because no class has been certified in this case, and because any dismissal would not 12 | affect putative class members’ claims, Rule 23(e) does not mandate either Court approval of the 13 || parties’ settlement or notice to putative class members. See Titus v. BlueChip Financial, 786 Fed. 14 | Appx. 694, 695 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Because no class has been certified, Titus is the only plaintiff 15 || before the court; once she has dismissed her claims with prejudice, no other plaintiff can step into 16 | her shoes to continue this legal action”) (unpublished) (citing Emp ’rs-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 17 | & 505 Pension Tr. Fund v. Anchor Capital Advisors, 498 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2007)). 18 In light of the parties’ filing that is consistent with Rule 41(a)(1) and the Court’s finding 19 | above that under the circumstances, Rule 23(e) does not require Court approval of the dismissal, 20 | this action has been terminated by operation of law without further order of the Court. Comm. 21 | Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 1999). 22 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to CLOSE the file in this 23 | case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1). 24 | IT IS SOORDERED. *5 Dated: _ June 28, 2023 | Ww v D i 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28