Palma v. TK&K Services ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSUE PALMA, individually and on behalf of Case No. 1:23-cv-00434-JLT-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 TK&K SERVICES, 15 (Doc. 20) Defendant. 16 17 18 On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff Josue Palma (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative, first amended 19 complaint in which he asserts claims on behalf of himself and a putative class against Defendant 20 TK&K Services (“Defendant”). (Doc. 18). Defendant filed an answer to the first amended 21 complaint on August 7, 2023. (Doc. 19). 22 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s stipulation for dismissal. (Doc. 20). The parties 23 stipulate to dismiss Plaintiff’s individual claims with prejudice and the putative class members’ 24 claims without prejudice. Id. at 2. 25 As the parties’ stipulation of dismissal comports with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 41(a)(1)(ii), Plaintiff is entitled to dismiss his individual claims (at least) without court order. In a 27 class action, however, court approval of dismissal may be required under Rule 41(a)(2) if the 28 class has been certified. Specifically, Rule 23(e) provides that any claims arising out of either a 1 | (1) “certified class” or (2) “class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement ... may be 2 | settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court's approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 | 23(e) (emphasis added). In this case, the parties jointly seek to dismiss the putative class claims 4 | under Rule 41(a)(1) without prejudice. (Doc. 20 at 2). No class has been certified, Plaintiff has 5 | not sought certification, nor has certification been proposed for purposes of settlement. 6 Because no class has been certified in this case, and because any dismissal would not 7 | affect putative class members’ claims, Rule 23(e) does not mandate either Court approval of the 8 | parties’ settlement or notice to putative class members. See Titus v. BlueChip Financial, 786 Fed. 9 | Appx. 694, 695 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Because no class has been certified, Titus is the only plaintiff 10 || before the court; once she has dismissed her claims with prejudice, no other plaintiff can step into 11 | her shoes to continue this legal action”) (unpublished) (citing Emp ’rs-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 12 | & 505 Pension Tr. Fund v. Anchor Capital Advisors, 498 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2007)). 13 In light of the parties’ filing that is consistent with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)Gi) and the Court’s 14 | finding above that under the circumstances, Rule 23(e) does not require Court approval of the 15 | dismissal, this action has been terminated by operation of law without further order of the Court. 16 | Comm. Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 1999). 17 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to CLOSE the file in this 18 | case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 19 } 41(a)(1)Gi). 20 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. Dated: _ October 30, 2023 | Wr by 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28