Dickson v. Rheem Manufacturing Co.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 9, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01812
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION 10

11 GLENN DICKSON, individually, and on Case No. 2:23-cv-01812-MCE-AC 12 behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 STIPULATION TO VOLUNTARILY Plaintiff, DISMISS PUTATIVE CLASS CLAIMS, 14 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PURSUANT TO v. F.R.C.P. 23(e), 41(a)(1) AND STAY THE 15 ACTION UNTIL THE PARTIES RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a VOLUNTARILY DISMISS THE 16 Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 10 INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS AND inclusive, COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE 17 Defendants. 18 19

20 On August 24, 2023, Defendant Rheem Manufacturing removed this action from the 21 County of Sacramento Superior Court. [Dkt. No. 1.] Shortly thereafter, the Parties informed the 22 Court they would be attending mediation on April 2, 2024, and submitted a stipulation to stay the 23 action and continue the deadlines for Defendant to respond to the Complaint and for Plaintiff to 24 file a motion to remand until May 17, 2024; this Court granted the stipulation on September 6, 25 2023. [Dkt. No. 5.] On May 3, 2024, the Parties filed a Notice of Settlement, informing the 26 Court that the Parties settled the matter at mediation on April 2, 2024 and are in the midst of 27 28 1 satisfying their duties as mandated by the settlement agreement. This Court notes that Defendant 2 has not filed an answer or otherwise responded to the Complaint, no scheduling conference has 3 taken place, the class has not been certified nor is certification being proposed for purposes of 4 settlement. 5 Now pending before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Stipulation to Dismiss the Putative 6 Class Claims, Without Prejudice, and Continue Stay as to Plaintiff’s Individual Claims. The 7 Parties seek only to stay the action until they file a stipulation to dismiss the individual claims 8 and Complaint, with prejudice, on or before May 30, 2024. The Parties further request that this 9 Court vacate the May 17th deadline for Defendant to respond to the Complaint and for Plaintiff to 10 file a motion to remand. 11 In a class action, court approval to dismiss class claims may be required under Rule 23(e) 12 and Rule 41(a)(2) if a case has been certified and the defendant has made a general appearance in 13 the action; however, on December 1, 2003, Rule 23(e) was amended to require court approval 14 only if the class has been certified, or if the parties are seeking certification. See Advisory 15 Committee Note to F.R.C.P. 23(e); see also, Emp’rs-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension 16 Tr. Fund v. Anchor Capital Advisors, 498 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2007). 17 As noted above, Defendant has not responded to the Complaint, the case has not 18 convened for a scheduling conference, Plaintiff has not sought certification nor is certification 19 being proposed for purposes of settlement, and the proposed dismissal without prejudice does 20 affect putative class members’ claims. Thus, under these circumstances, Rules 23(e) and 21 41(a)(1)(A)(i) do not require further Court approval to dismiss the putative class claims. The 22 Court further finds that it is in the interest of judicial economy to stay the action until the Parties 23 dismiss the individual claims, which will terminate the case in its entirety. 24 Accordingly, the Parties’ joint stipulation to dismiss the putative class claims, without 25 prejudice, and stay the action as to Plaintiff’s individual claims is hereby GRANTED. Pursuant 26 to the stipulation, the Court ORDERS the following: 27 (1) the Parties shall file a joint stipulation to dismiss Plaintiff’s individual claims and 28 1 Complaint, with prejudice, on or before May 30, 2024; 2 (2) the stay shall remain in effect until May 30, 2024, or until the Parties dismiss the 3 individual claims and Complaint with prejudice, whichever is sooner; 4 (3) the May 17, 2024 deadline for Defendant to respond to the Complaint and/or for 5 Plaintiff to file a motion to remand is HEREBY VACATED; and, 6 (4) the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to adjust the docket to reflect 7 voluntary dismissal of the putative class claims pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(); 8 however, the Clerk of the Court shall not close the case until the individual claims 9 and Complaint are dismissed. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1] Dated: May 9, 2024 Matar LEK: 13 MORRISON C. ENGLAND, □ ZY 4 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO DISMISS PUTATIVE CLASS CLAIMS, WITHOUT