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