Pettersen v. Circle K Stores Inc.

Opinion

WILLIAM D. PETTERSEN, individually Case No.: 3:21-cv-00237-RBM-BGS and on behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. Plaintiffs, 60(b)(6) TO VACATE ODER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION v. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

CIRCLE K STORES, INC., an Arizona [Doc. 96] Corporation, and DOES 1-10, Defendants. Currently pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to vacate order granting Plaintiff’s motion for class certification (“Joint Motion”). (Doc. 96.) In the Joint Motion, the parties explain that, during Defendant’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit challenging this Court’s Class Certification Order (Doc. 73), they reached a settlement agreement to resolve Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. 96 at 2.) Specifically, the settlement agreement resolves Lead Plaintiff Pettersen’s claims, without which the class lacks a representative. (Id.) As Plaintiff submitted in the parties’ joint statement of facts, Plaintiff has been unable to identify “any other carton customer that was purportedly misled by Circle K’s advertisements” and “Circle K is not aware of any other customer that was purportedly misled by Circle K’s advertisements.” (Id. (citing Doc. 86 ¶¶ 94, 95.).) Without an adequate class representative, the requirements of Rule 23 cannot be satisfied. (Id.) Accordingly, in light of the parties’ intended settlement, the parties jointly request an order vacating this Court’s Class Certification Order. (Id.) The parties also filed a stipulation to dismiss Defendant’s appeal without prejudice to reinstatement and immediate issuance of mandate in the Ninth Circuit, which was granted, and made dismissal of Defendant’s appeal conditional on the Court granting the instant Joint Motion. (Id.) Under Rule 60(b)(6) “[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for a number of reasons, including “any other reason that justifies relief.” “Rule 60(b)(6) is a ‘catch-all’ provision that ‘vests power in courts adequate to enable them to vacate judgments whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice.’” Jung Ai Shin v. U.S.C.I.S., No. CV 12-2839- GHK (SSx), 2013 WL 571781, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2013) (citations omitted). Based upon the parties’ representations in the Joint Motion, and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion and VACATES the Court’s Class Certification Order. (Doc. 73.) DATE: January 23, 2024 _____________________________________ HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE