Kelly Chang-Luna et al v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. et al

Filing 15

ORDER on Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/30/17: This action is dismissed with prejudice; The Clerk of Court shall close this case. (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 JOHN C. KLOOSTERMAN, Bar No. 182625 jkloosterman@littler.com ALEXIS A. SOHRAKOFF, Bar No. 273410 asohrakoff@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 6 7 Attorneys for Defendant ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC. 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 KELLY CHANG-LUNA and ESTEBAN SOLIS, Case No. 17-cv-00363-AWI-SKO 13 Plaintiffs, 14 STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL; ORDER v. 15 16 17 18 ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LITTLE R MEND ELSO N, P .C . 333 Bush Street 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415.433.1940 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL CASE NO. 17-CV-00363-AWI-SKO 1 This Stipulation and Order is entered into between Plaintiffs KELLY CHANG- 2 LUNA and ESTEBAN SOLIS (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & 3 FRAGRANCE, INC. (“Defendant”) (hereinafter the “Parties”), by and through their counsel of 4 record, as follows: 5 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs initiated the above entitled action by filing a proposed wage 6 and hour class action complaint on March 10, 2017 against Defendant (hereinafter “the Action”) in 7 the Eastern District of the United States District Court; 8 WHEREAS, after filing the Action, Plaintiffs learned they were class members in a 9 separate class action pending in the United States District Court in the Central District of California, 10 titled Sarah Moore v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., Case No. CV-12-3224 FMO 11 (AGRx) (“Moore action”); WHEREAS, Plaintiffs realized that the claims settled by the Moore action 12 13 significantly overlapped with the claims asserted by Plaintiffs in this Action; 14 WHEREAS, the claims asserted and settled in the Moore action included: (1) failure 15 to pay overtime compensation; (2) failure to compensate for all hours worked; (3) failure to pay all 16 wages due upon discharge; (4) failure to provide required meal periods; (5) failure to authorize or 17 permit rest periods; (6) failure to maintain required records; (7) waiting time penalties; and (8) unfair 18 competition under California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.; WHEREAS, Plaintiff Kelly Chang-Luna timely opted out of the settlement of the 19 20 Moore action and sought an individual settlement from Defendant; WHEREAS, Plaintiff Esteban Solis did not opt out of the settlement of the Moore 21 22 23 24 action; WHEREAS, on July 25, 2017, the Central District Court issued final approval of the class action settlement, entered judgment and dismissed the action with prejudice; 25 WHEREAS, Defendant has never responded to the Action (but has been in 26 communication with counsel for Plaintiffs) and Plaintiffs have not filed a motion for class 27 certification in the Action; 28 LITTLE R MEND ELSO N, P .C . 333 Bush Street 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415.433.1940 WHEREAS, Plaintiff Chang-Luna now desires to dismiss her individual claims with STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 1. CASE NO. 17-CV-00363-AWI-SKO 1 prejudice against Defendant due to a settlement with Defendant; 2 WHEREAS, Plaintiff Solis now desires to dismiss his individual claims with 3 prejudice in light of his participation as a class member in the settlement of the Moore action and the 4 action titled Quinby et al. v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., in the Northern District 5 Court of California, Case No. CV-15-4099 WHO; 6 WHEREAS, Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits voluntary 7 dismissal of the putative class action allegations and dismissal of the named plaintiffs’ claims prior 8 to certification of a class action without Court approval or notice to the putative class;1 WHEREAS, dismissal of this Action will not impair the claims of putative class 9 10 members, if any, because the Action has not been certified as a class action; WHEREAS, notice to the proposed class is not warranted in this case, as the Action 11 12 has not been certified as a class action; 13 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the Parties, that the 14 Court enter an Order that this Action be dismissed with prejudice, but that such Order will not affect 15 the rights of putative class members, other than Plaintiffs Kelly Chang-Luna and Esteban Solis, to 16 bring any existing claims they may have. Each party shall bear their or its own attorneys’ fees and 17 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LITTLE R MEND ELSO N, P .C . 333 Bush Street 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415.433.1940 Rule 23(e) states that “[t]he claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court's approval. See Fed Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 23(e) (emphasis added). The 2003 Committee Notes to revisions to Rule 23(e) make clear that Court approval is not required for settlements which seek to resolve only the named representative’s individual claims when sought prior to certification of a class: Rule 23(e)(1)(A) resolves the ambiguity in former Rule 23(e)'s reference to dismissal or compromise of "a class action." That language could be -- and at times was -- read to require court approval of settlements with putative class representatives that resolved only individual claims. See Manual for Complex Litigation Third, § 30.41. The new rule requires approval only if the claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class are resolved by a settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise. See Fed Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 23(e)(1), Committee Note of 2003 (emphasis added); see also Bender Practice Guide: Fed Pretrial Civ. Proc. in CA, at 20.41 (“Rule 23 requires court approval of a voluntary dismissal or settlement with notice to the class members, but the requirement of court approval applies only after certification of the action as a class action [see Fed R Civ P 23(e)(1)]. Before certification, plaintiffs may settle or dismiss their individual claims as in an individual action [see Fed R Civ P 23(e)(1), Committee Note of 2003]. Similarly, the plaintiffs may amend the complaint to delete the class allegations and proceed as in an individual suit [see Fed R Civ P 15].”) (parentheticals in original). STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 2. CASE NO. 17-CV-00363-AWI-SKO 1 2 3 costs. IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: August 31, 2017 4 5 /s/ John C. Kloosterman JOHN C. KLOOSTERMAN ALEXIS A. SOHRAKOFF LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC. 6 7 8 9 10 Dated: August 31, 2017 11 /s/ David D. Deason MATTHEW F. ARCHBOLD DAVID D. DEASON DEASON & ARCHBOLD 12 13 14 JOHN M. NORTON MATTHEW NORTON & ASSOCIATES 15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs KELLY CHANG-LUNA and ESTEBAN SOLIS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LITTLE R MEND ELSO N, P .C . 333 Bush Street 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415.433.1940 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 3. CASE NO. 17-CV-00363-AWI-SKO 1 ORDER Pursuant to the parties’ above-stipulation (Doc. 13), and GOOD CAUSE appearing, the 2 3 Court ORDERS: 4 1. That this Action is dismissed with prejudice; 5 2. That because no class has been certified, this Order has no effect on the existing 6 rights of putative class members other than Plaintiffs Kelly Chang-Luna and Esteban Solis; 7 3. That each Party shall bear their or its own attorneys’ fees and costs; and 8 4. That the Clerk of Court close this case. 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 30, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LITTLE R MEND ELSO N, P .C . 333 Bush Street 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415.433.1940 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 1. CASE NO. 17-CV-00363-AWI-SKO

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?