Casillas v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 21, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00653
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSE CASILLAS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00653-JLT-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE 13 v. COURT TO CLOSE CASE PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a)(1) OF THE FEDERAL 14 LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

15 Defendant. (Doc. 6)

17 18 On April 21, 2025, Plaintiff Jesse Casillas (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing 19 of a putative class action complaint in state court against Defendant Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC 20 (“Defendant”). (Doc. 1-1). Defendant removed the action to this Court on May 30, 2025. (Doc. 21 1). 22 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint stipulation for voluntary dismissal of the 23 action, filed on August 20, 2025. (Doc. 6). The stipulation is signed by all appearing parties and 24 otherwise comports with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and Plaintiff is entitled 25 to dismiss his individual claims (at least) without a court order. In a class action, however, court 26 approval of dismissal may be required under Rule 41(a)(2) if the class has been certified. 27 Specifically, Rule 23(e) provides that any claims arising out of either a (1) “certified class” or (2) 28 “class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement ... may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, 1 | compromised only with the court's approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (emphasis added). 2 In this case, Plaintiff seeks to dismiss his individual claims with prejudice and the claims of 3 | the putative class without prejudice. (Doc. 6 at 2). No class has been certified in this action nor is 4 | there a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement. (See Doc. 1). Because no class 5 | has been certified in this case, and because any dismissal would not affect putative class members’ 6 | possible claims, Rule 23(e) does not mandate either Court approval of the parties’ stipulation to 7 | dismiss the action or notice to putative class members. See Titus v. BlueChip Financial, 786 Fed. 8 | Appx. 694, 695 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Because no class has been certified, Titus is the only plaintiff 9 | before the court; once she has dismissed her claims with prejudice, no other plaintiff can step into 10 | her shoes to continue this legal action”) (unpublished) (citing Emp ’rs-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 11 | 505 Pension Tr. Fund v. Anchor Capital Advisors, 498 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2007)). 12 In light of Plaintiff's filing, the Court finds that Rule 23(e) does not require the Court’s 13 || approval of the dismissal. This action shall be terminated by operation of law without further order 14 | of the Court. Comm. Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 15 1999). 16 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case and adjust the docket 17 | toreflect dismissal with prejudice as to Plaintiff's individual claims and dismissal without prejudice 18 | as to the claims of the putative class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)Gw), with each party to 19 | bear that party’s own attorney’s fees and costs. 20 | IT IS SOORDERED. *I | Dated: _ August 21, 2025 | Word bo 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28