Sarmento v. F&P, Inc -Ovation Payroll, LLC

N.D. California

Sarmento v. F&P, Inc -Ovation Payroll, LLC

DecidedJune 8, 2023

Docket3:20-cv-07922

StatusUnknown

This text of Sarmento v. F&P, Inc -Ovation Payroll, LLC (Sarmento v. F&P, Inc -Ovation Payroll, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sarmento v. F&P, Inc -Ovation Payroll, LLC, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

10 ARMANDO SARMENTO, MERCEDES TEJADA-URENA, and JOSHUA SILVA, 11 No. C 20–07922 WHA Plaintiffs, 12

v.

13 ORDER RE DISMISSAL OF BUFFETS, LLC, HOMETOWN BUFFETS, PLAINTIFFS 14 LLC, and VITANOVA BRANDS, 15 Defendants.

16 17 At the hearing on plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw on June 7, 2023, from which 18 defendants were excused at their request, plaintiffs’ counsel explained that he was still unable 19 to reach plaintiff Joshua Silva. Stipulations signed by all parties to dismiss plaintiffs Armando 20 Sarmento and Mercedes Tejada-Urena pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A) have been filed (Dkt. 21 Nos. 57, 65). While Rule 41 contemplates dismissal of “actions,” our court of appeals has 22 interpreted it to permit dismissal of “fewer than all the plaintiffs who seek to withdraw from 23 the action.” Cf. Pedrina v. Han Kuk Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 n.2 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting 5 24 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 41.06-1, at 41-86 to 41-88 (2d ed. 25 1992)). And, in any event, Rule 21 states that “[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any 26 time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” Furthermore, defendants’ counsel has filed a report 27 under penalty of perjury explaining that the trustee in the corresponding bankruptcy 1 dismissal does not violate any automatic stay in place due to those proceedings (Dkt. No. 63). 2 This order thus confirms that plaintiffs Sarmento and Tejada-Urena are dismissed. 3 As to plaintiff Silva, the Court requested at the hearing that plaintiffs’ counsel make a 4 further attempt to contact his client. The Court shall determine how to proceed as to plaintiff 5 Silva after receiving an update on those efforts. Otherwise, this action remains stayed. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: June 8, 2023. 10 11 L ~ / beep WILLIAM ALSUP 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

10 ARMANDO SARMENTO, MERCEDES TEJADA-URENA, and JOSHUA SILVA, 11 No. C 20–07922 WHA Plaintiffs, 12

v.

13 ORDER RE DISMISSAL OF BUFFETS, LLC, HOMETOWN BUFFETS, PLAINTIFFS 14 LLC, and VITANOVA BRANDS, 15 Defendants.

16 17 At the hearing on plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw on June 7, 2023, from which 18 defendants were excused at their request, plaintiffs’ counsel explained that he was still unable 19 to reach plaintiff Joshua Silva. Stipulations signed by all parties to dismiss plaintiffs Armando 20 Sarmento and Mercedes Tejada-Urena pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A) have been filed (Dkt. 21 Nos. 57, 65). While Rule 41 contemplates dismissal of “actions,” our court of appeals has 22 interpreted it to permit dismissal of “fewer than all the plaintiffs who seek to withdraw from 23 the action.” Cf. Pedrina v. Han Kuk Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 n.2 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting 5 24 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 41.06-1, at 41-86 to 41-88 (2d ed. 25 1992)). And, in any event, Rule 21 states that “[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any 26 time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” Furthermore, defendants’ counsel has filed a report 27 under penalty of perjury explaining that the trustee in the corresponding bankruptcy 1 dismissal does not violate any automatic stay in place due to those proceedings (Dkt. No. 63). 2 This order thus confirms that plaintiffs Sarmento and Tejada-Urena are dismissed. 3 As to plaintiff Silva, the Court requested at the hearing that plaintiffs’ counsel make a 4 further attempt to contact his client. The Court shall determine how to proceed as to plaintiff 5 Silva after receiving an update on those efforts. Otherwise, this action remains stayed. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: June 8, 2023. 10 11 L ~ / beep WILLIAM ALSUP 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sarmento v. F&P, Inc -Ovation Payroll, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarmento-v-fp-inc-ovation-payroll-llc-cand-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack