Senne et al v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al

Filing 682

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero granting #673 Motion to Withdraw and Dismissing Claims of Matt Lewis and Matt Gorgen without Prejudice. (jcslc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
AARON SENNE, et al.,

7

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 14-cv-00608-JCS
Related Case No. 14-cv-3289-JCS

8
v.
9

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL
CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AND DISMISSING
CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. No. 673

12
13
14
15
16
17

I.

INTRODUCTION

18

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs‟ Motion to Withdraw Putative Class

19

Representatives Matt Lewis and Matt Gorgen and Dismiss their Claims without Prejudice

20

(“Motion”). Defendants do not object to Gorgen and Lewis‟s withdrawal but ask the Court to

21

dismiss their claims with prejudice and require that both Gorgen and Lewis sit for a “seven hour

22

deposition, in New York City, during regular business hours and on dates selected by Defendants

23

before July 8, 2016.” The Court finds that the Motion is suitable for determination without oral

24

argument and therefore vacates the scheduled July 8, 2016 hearing as to the instant Motion only

25

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED.1

26
27
1

28

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).

1
2

II.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs amended their complaint in this action to add Matt Gorgen as a named Plaintiff

3

on April 21, 2104 and Matt Lewis as a named Plaintiff on May 20, 2015. See Docket Nos. 39,

4

382. Gorgen played for the Tampa Bay Rays and Arizona Diamondbacks; Lewis played for the

5

Atlanta Braves. Both Gorgen and Lewis responded to written discovery propounded upon them

6

by Defendants, including the production of documents. Pouya Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.

7

In July of 2015 the parties collaborated to prepare a schedule of all 43 Plaintiffs named in

8

the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. Bloom Decl. ¶ 4. On July 27, 2015, Defendants

9

noticed Gorgen‟s deposition for January 14, 2016 and Lewis‟s deposition for January 26, 2016.
Id. According to Plaintiffs‟ counsel, when Gorgen and Lewis were informed of the noticed

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

depositions, they “decided they no longer wished to serve as class representatives in this action.”

12

Pouya Decl. ¶ 7. It is unclear when Gorgen and Lewis were informed of the depositions or when

13

they told counsel of their decisions.

14

On January 5, 2016, Plaintiffs‟ counsel informed Defendants that Gorgen needed to cancel

15

the scheduled January 14, 2016 due to a conflict. Bloom Decl. ¶ 5. When Plaintiffs were unable

16

to come up with an alternative date that worked for Gorgen, Defendants renoticed the deposition

17

for February 8, 2016, a time that was convenient for Defendants because they were already

18

conducting depositions of three other named Plaintiffs that week in the same location. Id. ¶ 7.

19

On February 3, 2016, Plaintiffs informed Defendants that Gorgen would not sit for his deposition

20

on February 8 and two days later, on February 5, they informed Defendants that Gorgen would be

21

withdrawing from the case. Bloom Decl. ¶ 5; Pouya Decl. ¶ 9.

22

On January 22, 2016, Plaintiffs‟ counsel cancelled the Lewis deposition scheduled to occur

23

on January 26, 2016. Bloom Decl. ¶ 11. The next day, Plaintiffs‟ counsel informed Defendants

24

that Lewis had decided to withdraw. Pouya Decl. ¶ 8.

25

According to Defendants, they informed Plaintiffs that they still planned to depose Gorgen

26

and Lewis. Bloom Decl. ¶¶ 10, 12. Plaintiffs declined to provide alternative dates, however,

27

taking the position that rescheduling the depositions would be unnecessary because they intended

28

to bring a motion seeking leave for Gorgen and Lewis to withdraw. Id. In their Motion for Class
2

1

Certification, Plaintiffs stated that they intended to seek leave to amend to add Aaron Dott, a

2

current opt-in Plaintiff, to substitute in for Matt Gorgen. See Docket No. 496 at 17 n. 75.
On May 20 and 23, 2016, Defendants served subpoenas on Plaintiffs‟ counsel rescheduling

3
4

the depositions for June 6 (Lewis) and June 9 (Gorgen). Bloom Decl. ¶¶ 15-16, 23-24. In the

5

interim, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion. Plaintiffs contend they provided a copy of the Motion

6

to Defendants the day before they filed it and that they were informed on the same day that

7

Defendants would oppose the Motion; Defendants state that Plaintiffs filed the Motion without

8

following up and before Defendants had informed Plaintiffs‟ counsel as to whether they would

9

consent to the relief requested in the Motion. Pouya Decl. 12; Bloom Decl. ¶ 21.
Defendants refused to reschedule the noticed depositions unless the parties could agree on

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

“reasonable alternative times, dates, and/or locations;” because Plaintiffs refused to provide

12

alternative dates, the depositions were not rescheduled. Bloom Decl. ¶ 22. Plaintiffs brought

13

motions for protective orders relating to the depositions, which the Court denied on June 13, 2016

14

on the basis that the parties had not adequately met and conferred. Docket No. 677. Gorgen and

15

Lewis did not appear at the noticed depositions. Bloom Decl. ¶¶ 23-24.
In the Motion, Plaintiffs ask the Court to dismiss Gorgen and Lewis pursuant to Rule

16
17

41(a)(2) and assert that the dismissal should be without prejudice and with no special conditions.

18

Defendants do not object to the dismissal of Gorgen and Lewis but ask the Court to dismiss their

19

claims with prejudice and to further require that Gorgen and Lewis sit for depositions of seven

20

hours each.

21

III.

ANALYSIS

22

A.

23

Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for the dismissal of an action

Legal Standard

24

by the Court “at the plaintiff‟s request . . . on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ.

25

P. 41(a)(2). The decision whether to allow a plaintiff to withdraw is left to the sound discretion of

26

the court, but a court should grant dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2)

27

so long as granting the motion would not cause defendant to suffer some “plain legal prejudice.”

28

Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001). Where the court finds that dismissal is
3

1

appropriate under Rule 41(a)(2), it must then decide whether or not the dismissal should be with

2

prejudice or if any terms or conditions should be imposed in connection with the dismissal to

3

avoid prejudice to the defendant. See Burnette v. Godshall, 828 F. Supp.1439, 1443 (N.D. Cal.

4

1993).

5

The “broad grant of discretion [in Rule 41] does not contain a preference for” dismissal
with or without prejudice. Hargis v. Foster, 312 F.3d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts consider

7

three factors in determining whether to dismiss with or without prejudice: “„(1) the defendant‟s

8

effort and expense involved in preparing for trial, (2) excessive delay and lack of diligence on the

9

part of the plaintiff in prosecuting the action, [and] (3) insufficient explanation of the need to take

10

a dismissal.‟” Burnette, 828 F. Supp. at 1443 (quoting Paulucci v. City of Duluth, 826 F.2d 780,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

783 (8th Cir. 1987)). “Additionally, „the district court must weigh the relevant equities and do

12

justice between the parties in each case, imposing such costs and attaching such conditions to the

13

dismissal as are deemed appropriate.‟” Id. (quoting McCants v. Ford Motor Co., 781 F.2d 855,

14

857 (11th Cir. 1986)).

15

B.

16

As Defendants do not object to the dismissal of Gorgen and Lewis from the action, the

Discussion

17

only questions the Court must decide are: 1) whether the dismissal should be with or without

18

prejudice; and 2) whether any additional conditions should be imposed to protect Defendants from

19

prejudice.

20

With respect to the first question, the Court finds that dismissal without prejudice is

21

appropriate. First, although Defendants state in their brief that they expended “significant

22

resources preparing for both seven-hour depositions,” Opposition at 6, the supporting declaration

23

by counsel is notably silent as to the question of whether Defendants‟ counsel expended any effort

24

specifically tied to these two depositions that went above and beyond what was already necessary

25

to prepare for the depositions of the 41 other named Plaintiffs, all of whom Defendants deposed.

26

Given that both depositions were cancelled several days before they occurred, and in light of the

27

fact that there is no evidence to the contrary, the Court presumes that no such special preparation

28

for these specific Plaintiffs occurred. Moreover, Defendants have not pointed to any unique role
4

1

played by these Plaintiffs that would render any other efforts by Defendants in this action a waste

2

of time or resources.
Second, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs engaged in excessive delay or lack of

3

diligence. The measure of whether Plaintiffs acted with sufficient diligence is whether

5

Defendants suffered any meaningful prejudice as a result of Plaintiffs‟ failure to bring the instant

6

motion sooner than they did. The Court finds that they have not. Plaintiffs informed Defendants‟

7

counsel that Gorgen and Lewis wished to withdraw from the action over six months ago; their

8

class certification motion did not ask the Court to appoint these plaintiffs as class representatives

9

and Plaintiffs informed both Defendants and the Court that they intend to seek leave to substitute

10

in Aaron Dott for Matt Gorgen as a class representative. Defendants do not dispute that they have

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

deposed Aaron Dott. In addition, as the Court noted when it rejected a similar argument by

12

Plaintiffs regarding Defendants‟ alleged delay in bringing their motion for reconsideration,

13

“[g]iven the magnitude of the case, the many difficult discovery issues that have arisen in recent

14

months and the deadlines [that were] facing the parties as to the now-pending motions for class

15

certification and decertification under the FLSA, the Court finds that the Moving [parties] were

16

reasonably diligent in bringing the Motion.” See Docket No. 652 at 6.
Finally, the explanation for seeking withdrawal – that Gorgen and Lewis are no longer

17
18

willing to shoulder the burden in terms of time and privacy associated with serving as a class

19

representative in a class action of this magnitude – is adequate and does not warrant precluding

20

any potential recovery in this action as class members.
The Court also rejects Defendants‟ assertion that they must be permitted to conduct a

21

22

seven-hour deposition of each of these individuals in order for a dismissal from the action to be

23

just. As discussed above, Defendants have not pointed to any special role played by these

24

individuals that would make dismissal of these plaintiffs without requiring their deposition unfair.

25

Therefore, such a condition need not be imposed to protect Defendants from prejudice.

26

IV.

CONCLUSION

27

For the reasons stated above, the Motion is GRANTED. The claims of Plaintiffs Matt

28

Gorgen and Matt Lewis are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). The Court
5

1
2

imposes no special terms or conditions on the dismissal of Gorgen and Lewis from this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

Dated: July 6, 2016

5
6
7

______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6