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)

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
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)