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)

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