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)

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