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