Gold v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. et al
Filing
115
ORDER APPROVING 114 STIPULATION TO DECERTIFY CLASS AND ENTER JUDGMENT. Signed by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman on 3/25/2015. (blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2015)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7
ELLEN ANNETE GOLD,
Case No. 13-cv-02019-BLF
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT,
INC., et al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION
TO DECERTIFY CLASS AND ENTER
JUDGMENT
Defendants.
[Re: ECF 114]
12
13
14
15
Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Stipulation to Decertify Class and Enter Judgment.
Stipulation, ECF 114.
Rule 23(c)(1)(C) provides that an order certifying a class “may be altered or amended
16
before final judgment.” In the period before class notice, the Court’s certification order is
17
“inherently tentative” and may be freely modified in light of subsequent developments in the
18
litigation. Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160 (1982) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand
19
v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 469 n.11 (1978)).
20
As set forth in the stipulation, the Court certified a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
21
Procedure 23(b)(3) on October 7, 2014. Thereafter, the parties could not agree on a form of notice
22
to the class and instead requested that the Court defer the issue of class notice until after ruling on
23
the parties’ motions for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment in
24
Defendants’ favor on March 20, 2015. The parties aver that “none of the approximately 43,942
25
prospective class members have been given notice by Plaintiff” and now seek to decertify the class
26
and enter judgment on Plaintiff’s individual claims. Stipulation at 2.
27
Because notice was never provided to the class members, Plaintiff never completed the
28
class certification requirements of Rule 23(c)(2). See Abels v. JBC Legal Grp., P.C., No. C04-
1
02345 JW, 2008 WL 782527, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2008). Furthermore, now that the Court
2
has resolved the legal question of liability in Defendant’s favor, requiring class notice would
3
violate the one-way intervention rule and be a costly exercise in futility. See generally
4
Schwarzschild v. Tse, 69 F.3d 293 (9th Cir. 1995) (discussing one-way intervention rule and
5
holding that “when defendants obtain summary judgment before the class has been properly
6
certified or before notice has been sent, they effectively waive their right to have notice circulated
7
to the class under Rule 23(c)(2); in such cases, the district court’s decision binds only the named
8
plaintiffs”).
9
As such, the Court approves the parties’ stipulation to decertify the class. The class
certified on October 7, 2014 at ECF 80 is hereby decertified. Judgment shall be entered in favor
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
of Defendants and against Plaintiff. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case file.
12
13
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 25, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
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?