Gabriel Gonzalez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Jeld-Wen, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a stipulation to dismiss the class action without prejudice. The court granted the stipulation and dismissed the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the entire action without prejudice“In light of the stipulation, the case has been dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal if the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The order notes that the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss, and all parties agreed. The court also correctly noted that because no class had been certified, Rule 23 did not require court approval or notice to class members. The dismissal without prejudice is the standard outcome for a voluntary dismissal under this rule. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct. It identifies the basis for dismissal (stipulation), cites the correct rule (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)), and addresses the potential complication of the case being a class action by noting the lack of certification. The reasoning is sufficient for a stipulated dismissal.
Opinion
] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 |] GABRIEL GONZALEZ, on behalf of Case No. 3:24-cv-01116-JO-DTF others similarly situated 12 CLASS ACTION 8 Plaintiff, Qn □ 14 [PROPOSED| Order Dismissing Entire vs Action Without Prejudice Pursuant to Id , Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) 16 || JELD-WEN, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Removal Date: June 27, 2024 7 Complaint Filed: May 23, 2024 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Order Dismissing Entire Action Without Prejudice Pursuant to 1 On January 20, 2026, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss this action without 2 || prejudice. All parties have agreed to the dismissal. 3 In light of the stipulation, the case has been dismissed without prejudice pursuant 4 || to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i1); see also 5 || Ripley v. Bridgestone Retail Ops., LLC., No. CO09-1482 RSM, 2010 WL 11684294, at 6 || *2 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 2, 2010) (citing Moore’s Federal Practice 3d, § 23.64[2][a] 7 || (2007)); see also Richey v. GetWellNetwork, Inc., No. 20-cv-2205-BEN-BLM, 2021 8 || WL 424281, at *3 (“Because no class has been certified in this case, Rule 23 does not 9 || mandate either court approval of the instant settlement or notice to putative class 10 || members” [quoting Allred v. Chicago Title Co., No. 19CV2129-LAB (AHG), 2020 11 || WL 5847550, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020]). 12 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Qe 16 || Dated: 1/21/2026 7 HON. JINSOOK OHTA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -l- Case No. 3:24-cv-01116-JO-DTF Order TDiiemiceing Entire Actinn Withnit Preindice Purenant to