Azad et al v. Tokio Marine HCC - Medical Insurance Services Group et al

Filing 100

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE AND STRIKING VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 09/22/2017. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MOHAMMED AZAD, et al.,

9
10
11

Case No. 17-cv-00618-PJH

Plaintiffs,

8
v.

TOKIO MARINE HCC - MEDICAL
INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, et al.,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH
PREJUDICE AND STRIKING
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 98, 99

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
14

As explained below, because there is no longer a case or controversy in front of

15

the court, the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The court also STRIKES

16

proposed plaintiff Ladan Abdollahi’s notice of voluntary dismissal.

17
18
19

On February 7, 2017, plaintiffs Mohammed Azad and Danielle Buckley initiated
this putative class action. Dkt. 1.
After complete briefing and hearing on the matter, on July 14, 2017, the court

20

granted defendants’ motions to dismiss. Dkt. 86. Plaintiffs were granted leave to file an

21

amended complaint by August 7, 2017. Id. at 18. However, plaintiffs were prohibited

22

from adding claims or parties without leave of court or stipulation of defendants. Id.

23

On August 3, 2017, plaintiffs Azad and Buckley accepted settlement offers from

24

HCC Medical Insurance Services, LLC and HCC Life Insurance Company (together,

25

“HCC”). Dkt. 96-1 ¶ 2. On August 4, 2017, the parties stipulated to a two-week

26

extension for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. In its order granting the stipulated

27

extension, the court reiterated that “if plaintiffs intended to add or substitute new class

28

representatives, they must either obtain the consent of the defendants, or file a motion for

1
2

leave of court by the” August 21, 2017 deadline. Dkt. 88.
On August 17, 2017, Azad and Buckley executed settlement agreements releasing

3

all claims against HCC. Id. On August 21, 2017, plaintiffs timely filed a motion for leave

4

to amend the complaint. Dkt. 89. The proposed amended complaint sought substitution

5

of a new plaintiff and class representative, Ladan Abdollahi. Dkt. 89-1. On August 31,

6

2017, the parties' stipulation extending the time for defendants to respond to the motion

7

to September 12, 2017, was approved by the court. Dkt. 93.

8
9
10

On September 11, 2017, Azad and Buckley voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice,
all claims made against all defendants in this action. Dkt. 94-95.
Notwithstanding that dismissal, defendants filed their opposition to the motion to

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

amend on September 12, 2017. Dkt. 96. On September 19, 2017, proposed plaintiff

12

Abdollahi withdrew her motion for leave to amend. Dkt. 97. The next day, proposed

13

plaintiff Abdollahi filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of her claims. Dkt. 98.

14

The court finds that this case must now be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The

15

named plaintiffs, Azad and Buckley, voluntarily dismissed their claims against all

16

defendants on September 11, 2017, WITH PREJUDICE. While plaintiffs did meet the

17

deadline to file a motion to amend the complaint, that motion has now been withdrawn

18

without the court either granting or denying it. At this time, therefore, there is neither a

19

named plaintiff nor an operative complaint. “As a result, there is no live case or

20

controversy to be decided within the meaning of Article III of the United States

21

Constitution.” Garcia v. Lane Bryant, Inc., No. 11-1566C, 2012 WL 293544, at *3 (E.D.

22

Cal. Jan. 31, 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); Employers-Teamsters Local Nos.

23

175 & 505 Pension Tr. Fund v. Anchor Capital Advisors, 498 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir.

24

2007) (“[A] suit brought as a class action must as a general rule be dismissed for

25

mootness when the personal claims of all named plaintiffs are satisfied and no class has

26

been properly certified.”).

27

The court also STRIKES proposed plaintiff Abdollahi’s notice of voluntary

28

dismissal. Ladan Abdollahi withdrew her proposed complaint before it was ever
2

1

approved by the court. Abdollahi is therefore not a party to this case and has no claims

2

against any defendant to voluntarily dismiss.

3

The Clerk shall close the case.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated: September 22, 2017

6
7

__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District 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
3