Brandon Burns, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rosendin Electric, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 17, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01303
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON BURNS, individually and Case No. 1:25-cv-01303-JLT-CDB on behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE 13 Plaintiffs, COURT TO CLOSE CASE PURSUANT v. TO RULE 41(a)(1) OF THE FEDERAL 14 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ROSENDIN ELECTRIC, INC., 15 (Doc. 13) Defendant. 16

17 18 On July 8, 2025, Plaintiff Brandon Burns initiated this action with the filing of a complaint 19 in state court, asserting claims both individually and on behalf of a putative class against Defendant 20 Rosendin Electric, Inc. (Doc. 2-2). Defendant removed the action on October 2, 2025. (Doc. 1). 21 On October 16, 2025, the parties filed a jointly executed stipulated dismissal of this action without 22 prejudice as to both the individual claims and putative class claims. (Doc. 13). 23 The stipulated dismissal comports with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) 24 and Plaintiff is entitled to dismiss the individual claims (at least) without court order. In a class 25 action, however, court approval of dismissal may be required under Rule 41(a)(2) if the class has 26 been certified. Specifically, Rule 23(e) provides that any claims arising out of either a (1) “certified 27 class” or (2) “class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement ... may be settled, voluntarily 28 dismissed, or compromised only with the court's approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (emphasis added). 1 In this case, the parties seek to dismiss both the individual claims and the claims of the 2 | putative class without prejudice. (Doc. 13 at 2). No class has been certified in this action nor is 3 | there a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement. (See Docs. 1, 13). Because no 4 | class has been certified in this case, and because any dismissal would not affect putative class 5 | members’ possible claims, Rule 23(e) does not mandate either Court approval of the parties’ 6 | stipulation to dismiss the action or notice to putative class members. See Titus v. BlueChip 7 | Financial, 786 Fed. App’x. 694, 695 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Because no class has been certified, Titus is 8 | the only plaintiff before the court ...”) (unpublished) (citing Emp ’rs-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 9 | 505 Pension Tr. Fund vy. Anchor Capital Advisors, 498 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2007)). 10 In light of the parties’ filing, the Court finds that Rule 23(e) does not require the Court’s 11 | approval of the dismissal. This action shall be terminated by operation of law without further order 12 | of the Court. Comm. Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 13 1999). 14 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to CLOSE the case and adjust 15 | the docket to reflect dismissal without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), as to both 16 | Plaintiffs individual claims and the putative class claims, with each party to bear that party’s own 17 || attorney’s fees and costs. 18 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: _ October 17, 2025 | Mw R~ 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28