Poole v. Laboratory Corporation of America ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN LLOYD POOLE, Case No. 1:21-cv-01805-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S DISMISSAL 13 v. OF CLASS ACTION CLAIMS PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) OF 14 LABORATORY CORPORATION OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL AMERICA, PROCEDURE 15 Defendant. (Doc. 37) 16 17 Clerk of the Court to Update Docket 18 19 On September 29, 2021, Plaintiff Brian Lloyd Poole (“Plaintiff”) filed an unverified 20 putative class action complaint in Kern County Superior Court. (Doc. 1-A). Defendant 21 Laboratory Corporation of America (“Defendant”) removed the action to this Court on December 22 23, 2021. (Doc. 1). 23 On April 20, 2020, Jose Bermejo filed a putative wage and hour class action against 24 Defendant in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case Number 2:20-cv- 25 05337-DMG-SK). On June 4, 2020, Bermejo filed a Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) 26 representative action against Defendant in Los Angeles Superior Court (Case Number 27 20STCV21106) 28 On February 28, 2022, a settlement was reached in the Bermejo matters. (Doc. 33). On 1 May 26, 2022, the Court stayed the instant matter pending finalization of the Bermejo settlement. 2 (Doc. 12). The settlement in Bermejo was preliminarily approved on March 21, 2023, and finally 3 approved on June 7, 2024, with disbursement of funds on July 15, 2024. Plaintiff was the only 4 individual to opt out of the Bermejo settlement. Plaintiff currently pursues this action on an 5 individual basis. (See Doc. 33). 6 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to dismiss the class claims without 7 prejudice. (Doc. 37). The parties’ stipulation of dismissal comports with the requirements of 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). In a class action, however, court approval of dismissal may be 9 required under Rule 41(a)(2) if the class has been certified. Specifically, Rule 23(e) provides that 10 any claims arising out of either a (1) “certified class” or (2) “class proposed to be certified for 11 purposes of settlement ... may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the 12 court's approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (emphasis added). 13 In this case, the parties jointly seek to dismiss the putative class claims under Rule 14 41(a)(1) without prejudice. (Doc. 37). Plaintiff has not amended his complaint and no class has 15 been certified. Moreover, Plaintiff has not sought certification, nor has certification been 16 proposed for purposes of settlement. Because no class has been certified in this case, and because 17 any dismissal would not affect putative class members’ possible claims, Rule 23(e) does not 18 mandate either Court approval of the parties’ disposition or notice to putative class members. See 19 Titus v. BlueChip Financial, 786 Fed. Appx. 694, 695 (9th Cir. 2019) (unpublished) (citing 20 Emp’rs-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Tr. Fund v. Anchor Capital Advisors, 498 F.3d 21 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2007)). 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 In light of the parties’ filing, the Court finds that Rule 23(e) does not require the Court’s 2 | approval of the dismissal of the class claims. The class claims shall be terminated by operation of 3 | law without further order of the Court. Comm. Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 4 | F.3d 1074, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 1999). 5 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to adjust the docket to reflect (1) 6 | dismissal without prejudice only as to Plaintiffs claims of the putative class pursuant to Fed. R. 7 | Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)Gi) and (2) that Plaintiff proceeds on his claims as an individual only. 8 | IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ September 6, 2024 | ) Ww Vv RY 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28