Bollinger v. Starbucks Corporation

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 MARIA BOLLINGER, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00303-JLT-SAB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 13 TO ADJUST THE DOCKET TO REFLECT v. VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO 14 RULE 41(a) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION, CIVIL PROCEDURE 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 69) 16 17 On June 12, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation dismissing this action with prejudice 18 pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 69.) 19 While Plaintiffs have brought this case as a putative class action, the Court agrees with 20 the parties that Rule 41(a), not Rule 23(e), applies in the disposition of this matter because no 21 class has been certified. Frias v. G4S Secure Sols. (USA) Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00403-AWI-SAB, 22 2021 WL 2894453, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2021) (“On December 1, 2003, Rule 23(e) was 23 amended to allow the ‘parties to a proposed class action to stipulate to dismissal of the action 24 without any judicial approval where the class has not yet been certified.’”); see also Sample v. 25 Qwest Commc’ns Co. LLC, No. CV 10-08106-PCT-NVW, 2012 WL 1880611, at *3 (D. Ariz. 26 May 22, 2012).1

27 1 Courts continue to have differing views on this issue because the Ninth Circuit has not yet reconciled its 1989 precedent, Diaz v. Trust Territory of Pacific Islands, 876 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1989), with the 2003 amendment to eee mE I IIE IID IEE EEE IIE IGE ENED EIEN

1 As no class has been certified in this action, the putative class members are not bound by 2 | the settlement and dismissal of this action. Therefore, the Court construes the parties’ stipulation 3 | to dismiss this action to be with prejudice as to Plaintiffs and without prejudice as to the putative 4 members. In light of the stipulation, this entire action has been terminated, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 | 41a) )(A)Gai); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been 6 | dismissed pursuant to the terms of the stipulation. 7 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to adjust the docket to 8 | reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a). It HEREBY ORDERED that all 9 | pending dates and matters are vacated. 10 ul IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 12 | Dated: _June 13, 2025 _ — STANLEY A. BOONE 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2023) (“Rule 23(e), however, governs the dismissal of class actions, even before class 23 certification has occurred.”); Gutierrez v. J.M. Distrib., Inc., No. SA CV 20-00617-DOC-JEM, 2020 WL 4355513, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2020) (“The Ninth Circuit has interpreted this requirement to apply before certification as 24 well.”); Albers v. Yarbrough World Sols., LLC, No. 5:19-cv-05896-EJD, 2021 WL 1925520, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2021) (“[C]ourts in this district have noted ‘some uncertainty’ about the continued application of Rule 25 23(e) to precertification settlement proposals in the wake of the 2003 amendments . . . [bJut our decisions have ‘generally assumed that it does’ apply . . . and this Court will follow Diaz to evaluate the proposed settlement and 26 dismissal here.”). However, this Court maintains its previous view and agreement with other courts that the 2003 amendment changed Rule 23(e) rendering Diaz inapplicable. See Frias, 2021 WL 2894453, at *1; Hall v. W. Ref. Retail, LLC, No. 5:19-cv-00855VAP-SKx, 2021 WL 4497925, at *1 n.1 (C.D. Cal. June 23, 2021) (“Although 27 some courts in this circuit have continued to apply Diaz, others have declined to do so in light of the amendments to Rule 23 ... [and] [t]he Court is persuaded by the latter authorities and the plain language of the Rule and 28 accordingly performs no further analysis under Rule 23.”).