Gallagher v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
Filing
44
ORDER STRIKING NEW PARTIES AND CLAIMS AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 4/4/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
COLLEEN GALLAGHER, et al.,
Case No. 15-cv-03952-HSG
Plaintiffs,
8
ORDER STRIKING NEW PARTIES
AND CLAIMS AND DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
v.
9
10
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.,
Re: Dkt. No. 40
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
On August 28, 2015, Plaintiff Colleen Gallagher filed this action on behalf of herself and
14
all others similarly situated against Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. Dkt. No. 1. Gallagher
15
was the sole named plaintiff in the action. On February 5, 2016, the Court granted Defendant’s
16
motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. Dkt. No. 18. The Court’s February 5, 2016,
17
order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss specifically instructed Plaintiff that she could amend
18
her complaint to sufficiently allege (1) injury-in-fact, and (2) why and how Defendant’s GMO
19
claims are false or misleading. Id. On March 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
20
(“FAC”), purporting to add six class representatives and several new claims under Maryland,
21
Florida, and New York laws. Dkt No. 40.
22
Plaintiff’s FAC went well beyond the scope of the Court’s leave to amend. While
23
California district courts have “occasionally considered new claims submitted in an amended
24
complaint where the prior order of dismissal granted leave to amend without limitation,” when the
25
Court grants leave to amend to cure deficiencies in certain specified claims, “new claims alleged
26
for the first time in the amended pleading should be dismissed or stricken.” DeLeon v. Wells
27
Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 10-CV-01390-LHK, 2010 WL 4285006, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2010);
28
see also Andrew W. v. Menlo Park City Sch. Dist., No. C-10-0292 MMC, 2010 WL 3001216, at
1
*2 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2010). Similarly, courts have stricken or dismissed new parties asserted for
2
the first time on amendment. See King v. Cty. of Los Angeles, No. 215CV07072CASEX, 2016
3
WL 893617, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2016). Because Plaintiff added new parties and claims
4
beyond the scope of the Court’s leave, the Court STRIKES the additional class representatives and
5
claims from the FAC.
On March 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of her claims without
6
7
prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Dkt. No. 42. Plaintiff has an
8
absolute right to dismiss at this stage. See Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir.
9
1997).
10
Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of her case, coupled with the Court’s order striking the new
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
class representatives and claims, means that nothing remains of this action. The additional class
12
representatives named for the first time in the FAC may file a new action against Defendant if they
13
wish. However, they may not plead around the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
14
15(a) by substituting themselves for Plaintiff without leave from the Court or written consent from
15
the opposing party, when Plaintiff clearly no longer wishes to prosecute her claims.
16
This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall close the file.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
Dated: 4/4/2016
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?