Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JODISUE SINGLEY, individually and on Case No.: 26-cv-2972-AJB-DEB behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER REQUIRING AMENDED NOTICE OF DISMISSAL 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 UTILITY WIRELESS, LLC, et al., 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 On August 27, 2026, Plaintiff Jodisue Singley filed a notice of voluntary dismissal 20 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff states 21 that he “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, hereby dismisses the 22 above-captioned action against Defendant Unity Wireless LLC, et al[.] with prejudice.” 23 (Id.) 24 Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal comports with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and Plaintiff is entitled to dismiss her individual claims (including, with 26 prejudice) without court order. In a class action, however, court approval of dismissal may 27 be required under Rule 41(a)(2) if the class has been certified. Specifically, Rule 23(e) 28 provides that any claims arising out of either a (1) “certified class” or (2) “class proposed 1 to be certified for purposes of settlement . . . may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or 2 compromised only with the court’s approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). 3 Here, no class has been certified, Plaintiff has not sought certification, nor has 4 certification been proposed for purposes of settlement. Ordinarily, where no class has been 5 certified, and where any dismissal would not affect putative class members’ claims (i.e., 6 where the dismissal of class claims is without prejudice), Rule 23(e) does not mandate 7 either Court approval of any settlement or notice to putative class members. See Titus v. 8 BlueChip Financial, 786 F. App’x 694, 695 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Because no class has been 9 certified, Titus is the only plaintiff before the court; once she has dismissed her claims with 10 prejudice, no other plaintiff can step into her shoes to continue this legal action”) 11 (unpublished) (citing Emp’rs-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Tr. Fund v. Anchor 12 Capital Advisors, 498 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2007)). In other words, “where the settlement 13 and dismissal only pertain to the class representative’s individual claims, court approval is 14 not required to dismiss the individual claims as the putative class claims, having not yet 15 been certified, have not come into existence; thus, there is nothing to dismiss.” Lee v. CVS 16 Pharmacy, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-01923-BEN-DEB, 2021 WL 308283, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 17 2021). 18 However, Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal purports to dismiss the entire action— 19 including claims on behalf of putative class members—with prejudice. Permitting 20 dismissal of class claims with prejudice could improperly concede the interests of any 21 potential new class action. See Casey v. Medcursor, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-00711-DAD-SAB, 22 2021 WL 4751378, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2021) (finding that “the settlement between 23 plaintiff and defendants resolves only plaintiff’s individual claims—because the parties are 24 only requesting dismissal of the class claims without prejudice, leaving putative class 25 members free to pursue a new class action, no class interests are being conceded”). 26 Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file by no 27 later than September 3, 2026, an amended notice which clarifies that only the individual 28 claims are being dismissed with prejudice, and the class claims without prejudice. 1 || Alternatively, if Plaintiff seeks to dismiss the class claims with prejudice, Plaintiff must 2 describe the particulars of dismissal separately as to the individual claims and the class 3 claims, and whether the dismissal comports with Rule 23(e). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: August 27, 2026 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28