Sheets v. Lippert Components, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Kristie Sheets, et al., No. 2:20-cv-01683-KJM-EFB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. Lipper Components, Inc., et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 This matter is before the court on plaintiff Kristie Sheets’ request for final judgment in a 18 | putative class action, pursuant to the court’s October 22, 2021 order granting defendants’ motion 19 | to dismiss with leave to amend. See ECF No. 46. As explained below, the court approves the 20 | request. 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs the litigation of class actions in federal court. 22 | Rule 23(e) includes several provisions on the settlement and voluntary dismissal of class actions, 23 | but that subsection requires the court’s approval of a settlement only when a class has been 24 | certified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (“The claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be 25 | settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court’s approval.”); see also id. 26 | advisory comm. notes to 2003 am. (“The new rule requires approval only if the claims, issues, or 27 | defenses of a certified class are resolved by a settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise.”). 1 | Because no class has been certified in this case, the court need not approve the parties’ settlement 2 | agreement. 3 Nevertheless, Rule 23(d)(1) allows the court to “issue orders that . . . require—to protect 4 | class members and fairly conduct the action—giving appropriate notice to some or all class 5 | members of... any step in the action... .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1)(B)(); see also Del Rio v. 6 | CreditAnswers, LLC, No. 10-346, 2011 WL 1869881, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 16, 2011). Similarly, 7 | the court may also consider “‘whether the proposed settlement and dismissal are tainted by 8 | collusion or will prejudice absent putative members with a reasonable reliance expectation of the 9 | maintenance of the action for the protection of their interests,’” and the court may “‘inquire into 10 | possible prejudice from . . . lack of adequate time for class members to file other actions, because 11 | ofarapidly approaching statute of limitations.’” De/ Rio, 2011 WL 1869881, at *2 (quoting Diaz 12 | v. Trust Territory of Pac. Islands, 876 F.2d 1401, 1407-08 & n.3 (9th Cir. 1989)); accord Lewis 13 | v. Vision Value, LLC, No. 11-01055, 2012 WL 2930867, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2012). 14 Here, the court is satisfied that dismissal of this action will result in no prejudice to the 15 | putative class members. This is not a widely publicized case, and potential class members are 16 | unlikely to have relied on this action to vindicate their interests. See, e.g., Castro v. Zenith 17 | Acquisition Corp., No. 06-04163, 2007 WL 81905, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2007). Moreover, 18 | “the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all 19 | asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to 20 | continue as a class action.” Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 554 (1974). 21 All of the individual claims and allegations brought by Kristie Sheets are dismissed with 22 | prejudice and all of the claims and allegations of the putative class members are dismissed 23 | without prejudice. This case is closed. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: April 7, 2022. [ (] 26 l tie / f os CHIEF ONT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45