D'Angelo v. Penney OpCo, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered the parties' joint motion to voluntarily dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court granted the motion, dismissing the plaintiff's individual claims with prejudice and the putative class claims without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant the parties' joint motion to dismiss the action.“Having considered the parties’ submission, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF No. 92.)” | agree with court The court correctly applied the local rule requiring a joint motion for stipulated dismissal and the Federal Rules governing voluntary dismissal. The decision to dismiss individual claims with prejudice and class claims without prejudice is a standard resolution for class actions where the named plaintiff's claims are resolved but the class certification or underlying class claims are not fully adjudicated, allowing for potential re-filing or other resolution of the class claims. |
Dismiss the individual claims of Plaintiff Noelle Arguelles with prejudice.“Accordingly, the individual claims of Plaintiff Noelle Arguelles against Defendant are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.” | agree with court While Rule 41(a)(1)(B) states dismissal is without prejudice unless stipulated otherwise, the parties' joint motion likely contained a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice regarding the individual claims, or the court exercised its discretion to ensure finality for the named plaintiff. This is a common practice in class action settlements or dismissals to prevent the named plaintiff from re-filing the same individual claims. |
Dismiss the claims of the putative class members without prejudice.“The claims of the putative class members are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court This is the standard procedural outcome when a class action is voluntarily dismissed before class certification. It preserves the rights of the putative class members to have their claims adjudicated in a future action or through other means, as the class was never certified and the claims were not adjudicated on the merits. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate federal rules and local rules. It accurately reflects the standard for voluntary dismissal and the typical handling of class claims in such dismissals. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order granting a joint motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NOELLE ARGUELLES, individually Case No. 23-cv-00981-BAS-DDL and on behalf of all others similarly 12 situated, Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ 13 JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS v. 14 (ECF No. 92) PENNEY OPCO, LLC, d/b/a 15 JCPENNEY, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion pursuant to Federal Rule of 19 Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss the instant action. (ECF No. 92.) 20 Under Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss its action 21 by (1) filing a notice of voluntary dismissal before a defendant has filed an answer or 22 moved for summary judgment or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties 23 who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); see also Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 24 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal is effective upon the filing of a notice or 25 stipulation, as described in Rule 41(a)(1)(A), and no court order is required. Stone v. 26 Woodford, No. CIV-F-05-845 AWI-DLB, 2007 WL 527766 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2007). A 27 dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 41(a)(1)(B). However, the local civil rules of this district require that where, as here, 1 || litigants seek voluntary dismissal pursuant to stipulation, in accordance with Rule 2 41(a)(1)(A)(a1), the stipulation of dismissal must be filed as a joint motion. See CivLR 7.2. 3 Having considered the parties’ submission, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. 4 ||(ECF No. 92.) Accordingly, the individual claims of Plaintiff Noelle Arguelles against 5 ||Defendant are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The claims of the putative class 6 || members are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs 7 attorneys’ fees. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ~ 10 || DATED: August 27, 2025 (yatta Bahar 1 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28