Larsen v. King Arthur Flour Company, Inc

Filing 52

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 34 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting 31 Motion to Dismiss. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 No. C 11-05495 CRB TAMAR DAVIS LARSEN, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS Plaintiff, v. 14 KING ARTHUR FLOUR COMPANY, 15 Defendant. / 16 17 Now before the Court are Plaintiff Tamar Davis Larsen’s Motion to Dismiss, dkt. 31, 18 and her Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, dkt. 34, in this putative class action. The 19 Court finds these matter suitable for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local 20 Rule 7-1(b), and VACATES the hearing currently set for Friday, June 29, 2012. Having 21 carefully reviewed the parties’ filings, the Court rules as follows. 22 Plaintiff moves to voluntarily dismiss the case with prejudice and with each party 23 bearing its own attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 24 Procedure 41(a). Both Plaintiff and Defendant agree that the instant case should be 25 dismissed with prejudice, and neither Defendant nor putative class members will suffer 26 “plain legal prejudice as a result” of the voluntary dismissal. See Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 27 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001). Attorneys’ fees and costs will not be imposed as a condition for 28 voluntary dismissal with prejudice because there is no risk of future litigation. See Burnette 1 v. Godshall, 828 F. Supp. 1439, 1443 (N.D. Cal. 1993); see also Rodriguez v. Serv. Emp. 2 Int’l, No. 10-1377, 2011 WL 4831201, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011) (denying defendants’ 3 request for costs as a condition of dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) because plaintiffs 4 stipulated to dismissal with prejudice and the case was “not exceptional”). Thus, the Court 5 GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss with prejudice, and each party is to bear its own 6 attorneys’ fees and costs.1 7 Plaintiff also moves for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Code of Civil 8 Procedure section 1021.5. Defendant adequately documents that Plaintiff’s action did not 9 motivate the Defendant to provide the primary relief sought. See Graham v. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal. 4th 553, 567 (2004). Plaintiff cannot be considered a 11 “successful party” because she did not catalyze Defendant to modify its behavior. See id. 12 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: June 29, 2012 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Court declines Defendant’s invitation to impose sanctions under Rule 41 or Rule 11. G:\CRBALL\2011\5495\order re fees.wpd 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?