Santiago v. Aramark Uniform and Career Apparel, LLC

Filing 32

ORDER GRANTING 31 Stipulation of Dismissal. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on January 24, 2013. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2013)

Download PDF
Case3:12-cv-04462-JSW Document31 Filed01/24/13 Page1 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ERIC A. GROVER, SBN 136080 JADE BUTMAN, SBN 235920 KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: 415.543.1305 Fax: 415.543.7861 eagrover@kellergrover.com jbutman@kellergrover.com Attorneys for Plaintiff ROBERT SANTIAGO ERIC MECKLEY, SBN 168181 KATHRYN M. NAZARIAN, SBN 259392 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 Tel: 415.442.1000 Fax: 415.442.1001 emeckley@morganlewis.com knazarian@morganlewis.com Attorneys for Defendant ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER APPAREL, LLC 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 18 ROBERT SANTIAGO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, 19 20 21 22 23 Case No. CV 12-4462 JSW JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Plaintiffs, FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) v. Complaint Filed: July 20, 2012 ARAMARK UNIFORM AND CAREER APPAREL, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (CASE NO. CV 12-4462 JSW) Case3:12-cv-04462-JSW Document31 Filed01/24/13 Page2 of 4 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff ROBERT 2 SANTIAGO (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER APPAREL, LLC 3 (“Defendant” or “AUCA”), by and through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby submit 4 this Joint Stipulation of Dismissal and [Proposed] Order, and stipulate and agree as follows: 5 WHEREAS, Santiago was employed by Defendant AUCA. 6 WHEREAS, on July 20, 2012, Santiago filed an alleged putative class action complaint 7 against Defendant. 8 overtime, failed to pay all wages earned, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, 9 failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to pay all 10 wages timely upon termination, and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. In 11 addition to his individual claims, Santiago sought to maintain such claims on a class action and 12 sought to recover attorneys’ fees and costs. 13 14 Santiago asserted claims against Defendant for alleged failure to pay WHEREAS, Santiago has agree to dismiss this entire civil lawsuit, with prejudice as to his individual claims and without prejudice as to the alleged putative class action claims. 15 WHEREAS, Santiago has not moved for class certification, and a class has not been 16 certified by the Court. The Parties’ stipulated dismissal of this action does not resolve the claims, 17 issues, or defenses of any putative or certified class. Under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of 18 Civil Procedure, where a class has not been certified, Court approval is not required for dismissal. 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (court approval only required for dismissal of “the claims, issues, or 20 defenses of a certified class”) (emphasis added); see also Advisory Committee Notes on 2003 21 Amendments to Rule 23, Subdivision (e), Paragraph (1) (“The new rule requires [court] approval 22 only if the claims, issues or defenses of a certified class are resolved by . . . voluntary dismissal.”) 23 (emphasis added). 24 WHEREAS, the Parties are not aware of any member of the alleged putative class who, in 25 reliance upon this action or otherwise, has refrained from bringing a claim identical or similar to 26 any of the claims in this action or who might be prejudiced by dismissal of this action by the 27 Court. 28 1 JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (CASE NO. CV 12-4462 JSW) Case3:12-cv-04462-JSW Document31 Filed01/24/13 Page3 of 4 1 For the reasons set forth above and pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 2 Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Parties hereby jointly Stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of 3 Santiago’s individual claims and the dismissal without prejudice of the alleged class action claims 4 and request that the Court terminate all proceedings in this action. 5 6 7 The Parties shall bear their own costs and fees associated with this action and the dismissal. IT IS SO STIPULATED 8 9 Dated: January 24, 2013 KELLER GROVER LLP 10 11 By: /s/Jade Butman Jade Butman Attorneys for Plaintiff ROBERT SANTIAGO 12 13 14 Dated: January 24, 2013 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 15 16 By: /s/Eric Meckley Eric Meckley Attorneys for Defendant ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER APPAREL, LLC 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (CASE NO. CV 12-4462 JSW) Case3:12-cv-04462-JSW Document31 Filed01/24/13 Page4 of 4 1 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER This action is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Plaintiff 3 Santiago’s individual claims are dismissed with prejudice, and the claims of the putative class 4 members are dismissed without prejudice. Santiago has not moved for class certification, a class 5 has not been certified by the Court, and this dismissal does not resolve the claims, issues, or 6 defenses of any putative or certified class. Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil 7 Procedure, where a class has not been certified, Court approval is not required for dismissal. Fed. 8 R. Civ. P. 23(e); see also Advisory Committee Notes on 2003 Amendments to Rule 23, 9 Subdivision (e), Paragraph (1). The Court hereby terminates all proceedings in this action. 10 The Parties shall bear their own costs and fees associated with this action and the 11 dismissal. 12 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 January 24, 2013 Dated: _______________________________ HON. JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (CASE NO. CV 12-4462 JSW)

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?