Castro v. Cintas Corporation No. 3
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the plaintiff's class claims without prejudice and individual claims with prejudice. The court granted the motion, dismissing the claims as requested and directing the Clerk to close the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of Plaintiff's class claims without prejudice“In light of the stipulation, Plaintiffs class claims are dismissed without prejudice and Plaintiff's individual claims are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.” | agree with court The dismissal is based on a joint stipulation by all parties. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), parties may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal if no prior motion for relief has been made. While the parties filed a 'joint motion' rather than a simple notice, the court's acceptance of the stipulation to dismiss without prejudice is a standard procedural mechanism to effectuate the parties' agreement. The decision follows from the law and the record recited. |
Dismissal of Plaintiff's individual claims with prejudice“In light of the stipulation, Plaintiffs class claims are dismissed without prejudice and Plaintiff's individual claims are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.” | agree with court The dismissal is based on a joint stipulation by all parties. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows for voluntary dismissal. While the rule typically presumes dismissal without prejudice unless otherwise specified, parties may stipulate to dismissal with prejudice, and courts routinely accept such stipulations to resolve individual claims in class action contexts where the class claims are being preserved or resolved separately. The decision follows from the law and the record recited. |
Case closed“Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case.” | agree with court The court directed the Clerk to close the case following the dismissal of all claims. This is a standard administrative consequence of a final dismissal order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a short, procedural disposition based on a joint stipulation. It correctly cites Rule 41 as the basis for dismissal. It also cites relevant district court cases to support the procedural posture regarding the lack of class certification, which justifies the dismissal without the need for Rule 23(e) settlement approval or notice. The reasoning is sufficient for a stipulated dismissal.
Opinion
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 DAMIAN A. CASTRO, individually and Case No. 3:24-cv-00932-AJB-MMP on behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 CLASS ACTION 13 Plaintiff, Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Class 14 Claims Without Prejudice and 15 vs. Individual Claims With Prejudice 16 CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 3 and 17 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 On September 9, 2024, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss Plaintiffs class 2 || claims without prejudice and Plaintiffs individual claims with prejudice. All parties 3 || have agreed to the dismissal. 4 In light of the stipulation, Plaintiffs class claims are dismissed without prejudice 5 || and Plaintiff's individual claims are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule 6 || of Civil Procedure 41. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); see also Ripley v. 7 || Bridgestone Retail Ops., LLC., No. C09-1482 RSM, 2010 WL 11684294, at *2 (W.D. 8 || Wash. Sept. 2, 2010) (citing Moore’s Federal Practice 3d, § 23.64[2][a] (2007)); see 9 ||also Richey vy. GetWellNetwork, Inc., No. 20-cv-2205-BEN-BLM, 2021 WL 10 |} 424281, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2021) (“Because no class has been certified in this 11 || case, Rule 23 does not mandate either court approval of the instant settlement or 12 || notice to putative class members.”) (quoting Allred v. Chicago Title Co., 13 || No. 19CV2129-LAB (AHG), 2020 WL 5847550, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020)). 14 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: October 3, 2024 | ZS : Le 18 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -l- Case No. 3:24-cv-00932-AJB-MMP Order Niecmiccinge Plaintiffy<e Clace Claime Withoait Prenidice and Individual Claime