Duran v. Sephora USA Inc

Filing 55

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND ORDER. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 11/30/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Alejandro P. Gutierrez, SBN 107688
HATHAWAY, PERRETT, WEBSTER, POWERS,
CHRISMAN & GUTIERREZ, APC
200 Hathaway Building
5450 Telegraph Road, Suite 200
Post Office Box 3577
Ventura, CA 93006-3577
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Daniel J. Palay, SBN 159348
Brian D. Hefelfinger, SBN 253054
PALAY HEFELFINGER, APC
1484 E. Main Street
Suite 105-B
Ventura, CA 93001
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff JESSICA DURAN and the Putative Class

12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15
16

JESSICA DURAN, an individual, for herself
and those similarly situated; ROES 1 through
30,000; and the Putative Class,

17
Plaintiffs,

18
vs.

19
20
21
22

SEPHORA USA, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,

23

Defendants.

24
25

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO: 3:17-cv-01261-WHO
Action filed: 3/9/2017
Assigned to: Judge William H. Orrick
CLASS ACTION

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND
ORDER

26
27

///

28

///
1
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 3:17-cv-01261-WHO

1

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed this action on March 9, 2017 on behalf of a purported class

2

of all employees of Sephora, asserting claims under California law, including a claim for

3

unpaid wages based on the theory that Sephora does not properly compute overtime on certain

4

non-discretionary bonuses; a related wage statement claim under Labor Code section 226, a

5

claim under Labor Code § 212 concerning Sephora’s provision of pay cards to employees

6

under certain circumstances, and derivative claims under California’s Unfair Competition

7

Law. (ECF Dkt. No. 1);

8

WHEREAS, on March 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint to correct

9

a minor date error in the class definition (Dkt. No. 15) and on May 16, 2017, after having

10

complied with all procedural requirements of PAGA by giving notice to the California Labor

11

and Workforce Development Agency, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint, which

12

added a cause of action for civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorney’s General

13

Act. (Dkt. No. 22);

14
15

WHEREAS, on April 14, 2017, Defendant Sephora USA, Inc. duly answered Plaintiff’s
First Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 19);

16

WHEREAS, on June 23, 2017, Defendant Sephora USA, Inc. moved to dismiss

17

Duran’s Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1), asserting that the Court lacks

18

jurisdiction to hear Duran’s class claims under CAFA. (Dkt. No. 32);

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

WHEREAS, in response, Duran filed a motion for leave to amend seeking to add FLSA
claims to her complaint. (Dkt. No. 35);
WHEREAS, on August 11, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a
third amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 42);
WHEREAS, in its Order, the Court instructed the parties to submit additional briefing
on the issue of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims;
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed her Third Amended Complaint. (Dkt.
No. 45);
WHEREAS, Defendant Sephora USA, Inc. duly answered Plaintiff’s Third Amended
Complaint on September 7, 2017. (Dkt. No. 47);
2
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 3:17-cv-01261-WHO

1

WHEREAS, on September 18, 2017, after considering the parties’ additional briefing

2

on the issue of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, the Court dismissed

3

Plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice, finding Plaintiff’s “state law claims predominate

4

over the federal claim.” (Dkt. No. 51);

5

WHEREAS, Plaintiff thereafter on September 22, 2017 filed an action in the Superior

6

Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco entitled Duran v. Sephora USA,

7

Inc., No. CGC-17-561452 asserting state claims;

8

WHEREAS, after taking the FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition of Sephora’s designated

9

corporate witness in November 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel determined that liability for

10

Plaintiff’s FLSA claims would be difficult to prove and damages would be de minimis even if

11

liability was proven;

12

WHEREAS, the parties agreed to dismiss the matter with a mutual waiver of costs;

13

WHEREAS, no class notice was ever sent to the members of the putative class;

14

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff Jessica Duran and

15

defendant Sephora USA, Inc. through their designated counsel that the above-captioned action

16

should be dismissed without prejudice as to Ms. Duran as an individual and those similarly

17

situated pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1). The parties further stipulate that the parties shall bear

18

their own attorney’s fees, expenses and costs.

19

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

20
21
22

Dated: November 30, 2017 HATHAWAY, PERRETT, WEBSTER, POWERS, CHRISMAN &
GUTIERREZ, APC
By:

23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: November 30, 201

By:

/s/
ALEJANDRO P. GUTIERREZ
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jessica Duran and the Putative Class
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

______/s/___________________________________________
ALEXANDRA H. STATHOPOULOS
Attorneys for Defendant Sephora USA, Inc.
3

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 3:17-cv-01261-WHO

1

ORDER

2
3
4

The Court, having considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing
therefor, orders as follows:

5
6
7
8
9

1. The action is dismissed without prejudice as against Defendant Sephora USA, Inc.
pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1);
2. Each party shall bear their own costs and attorney’s fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11
12

Dated:November 30, 2017

__________________________________________
Honorable William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 3:17-cv-01261-WHO