Guerrero v. LuxClub, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 12, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00721
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREA GUERRERO, Case No. 1:24-cv-00721-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 LUXCLUB, INC., et al., RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

15 Defendants. (Doc. 23)

17 18 On June 21, 2024, Plaintiff Andrea Guerrero (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing 19 of a putative class action complaint against Defendants LuxClub, Inc., Bold Adventures, LLC, and 20 Margaret Mosseri. (Docs. 1, 4). 21 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal of the action against 22 Defendants, filed on March 11, 2025. (Doc. 23). The notice of dismissal is signed by all parties 23 and otherwise comports with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and Plaintiff is 24 entitled to dismiss her individual claims (at least) without a court order. In a class action, however, 25 court approval of dismissal may be required under Rule 41(a)(2) if the class has been certified. 26 Specifically, Rule 23(e) provides that any claims arising out of either a (1) “certified class” or (2) 27 “class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement ... may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, 28 or compromised only with the court's approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (emphasis added). 1 In this case, Plaintiff seeks to dismiss her individual claims with prejudice and the claims 2 || of the putative class without prejudice. (Doc. 23). 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, 4, 18). 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 || settlement or notice to putative class members. See Titus v. BlueChip Financial, 786 Fed. Appx. 7 | 694, 695 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Because no class has been certified, Titus is the only plaintiff before the 8 || court; once she has dismissed her claims with prejudice, no other plaintiff can step into her shoes 9 | to continue this legal action”) (unpublished) (citing Emp’rs-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 10 | Pension Tr. Fund v. Anchor Capital Advisors, 498 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2007)). 11 In light of Plaintiffs filing, the Court finds that Rule 23(e) does not require the Court’s 12 | approval of the dismissal. This action shall be terminated by operation of law without further order 13 | of the Court. Comm. Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 14 | 1999). 15 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case and adjust the docket 16 || to reflect dismissal with prejudice as to Plaintiffs individual claims and without prejudice as to the 17 | claims of the putative class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)Gi), with each party to bear that 18 || party’s own attorney’s fees and costs. 19 | ITIS SO ORDERED. Dated: _March 12, 2025 | hr 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28