Hale et al v. Ensign United States Drilling (California) Inc. et al

Filing 94

ORDER DISMISSING CASE ; ORDERED to enter Judgment In Favor of Defendants pursuant to the September 28, 2017 order and to close this case, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/20/17. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 STEPHANIE HALE and O’BRIAN RANGEL individually, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION Plaintiffs, 14 (Doc. No. 90, 92) v. 15 16 17 No. 1:15-cv-01042-DAD-JLT ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING (CALIFORNIA), INC., ENSIGN ENERGY SERVICES, INC., and ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING, INC., 18 Defendants. 19 20 On September 28, 2017, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 21 22 (Doc. No. 88.) The matter was referred back to the assigned magistrate judgment for further 23 proceedings solely because the parties had indicated the possibility that resolution of the motion 24 for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s federal WARN Act and California WARN Act 25 claims might not fully resolve potential claims to be brought on behalf of other Ensign California 26 workers who were terminated in 2014. (Id. at 18.) Therefore, in granting defendants’ motion for 27 summary judgment, the court directed the parties to inform the court of their intention with 28 ///// 1 1 respect to the potential additional claims and indicated that if no new plaintiffs or claims would 2 be joined, the action would be dismissed. (Id. at n.8.) On November 6, 2017, plaintiffs filed a 3 notice of intent not to amend and request for dismissal on the basis that no new parties would be 4 added to this action. (Doc. No. 90.)1 Thereafter, defendants objected to plaintiffs’ request for 5 dismissal and sought entry of judgment in light of the court’s granting of their motion for 6 summary judgment with respect to the only claims brought in this action. (Doc. No. 92.) In the court’s September 28, 2017 order granting defendants’ motion for summary 7 8 judgment, judgment was entered in defendants’ favor with respect to plaintiffs’ federal WARN 9 Act and California WARN Act claims—the only two claims brought in this action. (See Doc. No. 10 1 at 10–13). Because plaintiff has advised that no additional claims will be brought, the Clerk of 11 the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants pursuant to the September 28, 2017 12 order and to close this case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: November 20, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff’s other requests were related to the status conference which was subsequently vacated by the assigned magistrate judge. (Doc. No. 93.) 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?