United Food and Commercial Workers Union et al v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation et al

Filing 362

ORDER granting 358 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 6/21/2013. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL
WORKERS UNION, et al.,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No. CIV-09-1114-D
Class Action

ORDER
Before the Court is the joint motion of Lead Plaintiff and Defendants UBS Investment Bank,
ABN AMRO, Banc of America Securities LLC, and Wells Fargo Securities (the “Underwriter
Defendants”) to Dismiss Claims Against Underwriter Defendants [Doc. No. 358]. Pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), Lead Plaintiff and the Underwriter Defendants seek dismissal without prejudice
of the claims asserted by Lead Plaintiff against the Underwriter Defendants in this action.
According to their joint motion, Lead Plaintiff and the Underwriter Defendants have reached
an agreement to dismiss the claims without prejudice because Lead Plaintiff intends to appeal the
Court’s March 29, 2013 Order (“March 29 Order”)[Doc. No. 354] granting summary judgment
against Lead Plaintiff on its claims against all other defendants in this action.1
The Court has reviewed the motion and concludes that the motion may be approved without
notice to the other class members under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). The motion seeks dismissal of claims
asserted against some but not all defendants, and it seeks dismissal without prejudice. Accordingly,

1

In a separate, unopposed motion [Doc. No. 359], Lead Plaintiff has asked the Court to enter final judgment
on the claims resolved in the March 29, 2013 Order so that it may pursue its appeal of that ruling. Further, the parties’
representations and agreement with respect to the dismissal of claims against the Underwriter Defendants are set forth
in the joint motion (Doc. No. 358), and incorporated herein by reference.

under the circumstances presented here, approval of the dismissal without prejudice does not have
an adverse effect on the rights of the other class members.
Having considered the motion and the parties’ joint representations and agreement, the Court
finds that the motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 359] should be, and is hereby, GRANTED. Accordingly,
Lead Plaintiff’s claims against the Underwriter Defendants are hereby dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of June, 2013.

2