Ollier et al v. Sweetwater Union High School District et al

Filing 139

ORDER Denying 138 Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Fourth Claim for Relief: Because notice to class members is required when a voluntary dismissal of a claim is proposed, the parties joint motion to dismiss plaintiffs fourth claim for relief is DENIED. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 7/12/2010. (mjj)

-WMC Ollier et al v. Sweetwater Union High School District et al

Doc. 139

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 VERONICA OLLIER, et al., 12 13 v. 14 SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 07cv714-L(WMc) ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF [doc. #138] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The parties jointly seek to dismiss plaintiffs' fourth cause of action brought under 42

18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs assert that the dismissal of this cause of action is intended to 19 "streamline the case for trial and to avoid the need for presentation of cumulative evidence." 20 (Joint Motion at 2.) Plaintiffs also state that "the relief sought in their remaining claims will 21 fully address and protect their rights, and that the fourth claim seeks essentially the same relief 22 and remedies sought in the remaining claims." Id. 23 The present case is a class action certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

24 23(b)(2). A voluntary dismissal of a claim in any type of class action requires the Court's 25 approval and notice to class members who would be bound by the proposal. FED. R. CIV. P. 26 23(e)(1). 27 28 The claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court's approval. The following procedures apply to a proposed settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise:
07cv714

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3

(1) (2)

The court must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal. If the proposal would bind class members, the court may approve it only after a hearing and on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

4 FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e)(1) & (2). 5 The parties point to Rule 23(c)(2)1 to support their statement that the Court "enjoys wide

6 discretion to determine the extent of notice to be applied." (Joint Motion at 2 (citing Fed. R. 7 Civ. P. 23(c)(2).) However, this portion of Rule 23 is directed to notice to class members of 8 class certification and not to the voluntary dismissal of a claim. 9 In contrast to notice of class certification, the voluntary dismissal of a claim requires

10 notice be given in a reasonable manner: "The court must direct notice in a reasonable manner to 11 all class members who would be bound by the proposal." FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e)(1) (emphasis 12 added.) Although the Court has significant latitude to determine what type and the extent of 13 notice that would be reasonable for voluntary dismissal of a claim, some form of notice to all 14 class members who would be bound by the proposal is necessary. There is no dispute the 15 dismissal of the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim would bind all class members. 16 The parties state they are "in agreement that plaintiffs may voluntarily dismiss the fourth

17 claim and respectfully submit that notice to the class is not necessary." (Joint Motion at 2.) But 18 as discussed above, some form of notice is required for the voluntary dismissal of a claim even 19 in a Rule 23(b)(2) class action such as this case. Because they do not believe notice to the class 20 is necessary for the dismissal of the fourth cause of action, the parties have not offered any 21 suggestions for providing notice to class members. Rather, the parties acknowledge they are at 22 an impasse if the Court determines notice is required: "should the Court determine that class 23 notice regarding the dismissal of the 1983 claim is necessary, the parties [ ] are split as to what 24 should occur." (Id. at 3.) 25 Plaintiffs suggest bifurcation of the fourth cause of action which would permit the parties

26 to dismiss the section 1983 claim after the other claims are resolved at trial thus allowing all 27 28 "For any class certified under Rule 23(b)(1) or (b)(2), the court may direct appropriate notice to the class." FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(2)(A)
2
07cv714
1

1 class notice to be accomplished for all issues, claims and rulings at that time. (Id.) Defendants 2 oppose bifurcation on the ground that one trial would support judicial economy. The Court 3 declines the parties' invitation to make a ruling on the issue of bifurcation without full briefing 4 and at this late date. 5 Because notice to class members is required when a voluntary dismissal of a claim is

6 proposed, the parties' joint motion to dismiss plaintiffs' fourth claim for relief is DENIED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 DATED: July 12, 2010 9 10 11 COPY TO: 12 HON. WILLIAM McCURINE, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
3
07cv714

M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge