Chavez v. Amazon.com LLC et al

Filing 19

ORDER GRANTING 13 STIPULATION Dismissing Entire Action. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 07/27/2015. (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ERIC CHAVEZ, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-02186-KAW

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION OF
DISMISSAL

9
10

GOLDEN STATE FC, LLC, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 13

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On June 26, 2015, the parties to the above-captioned case filed a "Stipulation for an Order

14

Dismissing Entire Action," Dkt. No. 13, seeking dismissal of the individual named plaintiff's

15

claims with prejudice and dismissal of the class claims without prejudice.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Because the parties did not address the factors set forth in Diaz v. Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands, 876 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1989), the Court ordered the parties to file a brief
addressing those factors, along with any declarations that would satisfy the Court that dismissal is
appropriate in this case. (July 17, 2014 Order, Dkt. No. 17.) On July 24, 2015, the parties filed
their brief, along with a declaration from J. Jason Hill, co-counsel for the named plaintiff and the
prospective class. (Supp. Br., Dkt. No. 13; Hill Decl., Dkt. No. 18-1.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) states that the "claims, issues, or defenses of a
certified class may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court's

23
approval." The Ninth Circuit has extended this court approval requirement to settlements made
24
before a class has been certified. Diaz, 876 F.2d at 1408. It has stressed, however, that a "court's
25
26
27
28

duty to inquire into a settlement or dismissal differs before and after certification" because, before
certification, the risk of prejudice to absent class members is significantly lower. Id. (noting that
pre-certification dismissals do not require "the kind of substantive oversight required when

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

reviewing a settlement binding upon the class").
To determine whether pre-certification settlement or dismissal is appropriate, the court
must inquire into possible prejudice resulting from:
(1) class members' possible reliance on the filing of the action if they are likely to
know of it either because of publicity or other circumstances, (2) lack of adequate
time for class members to file other actions, because of a rapidly approaching
statute of limitations, (3) any settlement or concession of class interests made by
the class representative or counsel in order to further their own interests.
Diaz, 876 F.2d at 1408.
Having reviewed the parties' submission, the Court finds that the risk of possible prejudice
to potential class members is slight, if not non-existent. First, Mr. Hill is not aware of any
significant news coverage regarding this case, and he has not received any inquiries from potential

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

class members. (Id.) Under these circumstances, the Court finds that it is unlikely that potential

12
13
14
15
16

class members knew about this action and relied on it for vindication of their own rights. Second,
the parties seek to dismiss the class claims without prejudice, which would allow any absent class
members to assert their own claims in a separate action. The class action tolling doctrine ensures
that these claims would not be time-barred. See Lyons v. Bank of America, N.A., No. C 11-1232
CW, 2012 WL 5940846, at * 2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) (citations omitted). Third, "[n]o
consideration or settlement was made, and neither [the named plaintiff] nor any of the proposed

17
class counsel received any money for the voluntary dismissal," see Hill Decl. ¶ 5, which
18
diminishes any risk that dismissal is sought to further the interests of the class representative or
19
20
21
22
23
24

counsel.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS the parties' stipulation. The named
plaintiff's individual claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All class claims are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 07/27/2015
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
2