Jodisue Singley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Utility Wireless, LLC, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff filed an amended notice of voluntary dismissal seeking to dismiss individual claims with prejudice and putative class claims without prejudice. The Court granted the dismissal, finding that Rule 23(e) did not require court approval because no class had been certified.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of individual claims with prejudice“Plaintiff's individual claims are DISMISSED with prejudice” | agree with court The order correctly applies Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The record indicates the case was filed in May 2026 and dismissed in August 2026, and there is no indication that an answer or summary judgment motion had been served, making the dismissal proper under the rule. |
Dismissal of putative class claims without prejudice“the putative class claims are DISMISSED without prejudice” | agree with court The court correctly determined that Rule 23(e) does not apply because no class had been certified. Rule 23(e) governs settlements or dismissals of certified classes or classes proposed for certification for settlement purposes. Since neither condition was met, the dismissal of the putative class claims without prejudice does not require court approval under Rule 23(e). The dismissal without prejudice preserves the putative class members' ability to bring their own claims, which is consistent with the nature of a putative class action prior to certification. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable rules (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and Rule 23(e)) and applies them to the facts presented. It correctly notes that Rule 23(e) does not require court approval because no class was certified. The reliance on Titus and Anchor Capital Advisors supports the conclusion that the dismissal of the named plaintiff's claims does not require further procedural steps regarding the putative class. The reasoning is sound and directly addresses the motion.
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 DISMISSING CASE 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 UTILITY WIRELESS, LLC, et al., 16 Defendant. 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s amended notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice 19 as to the individual claims and without prejudice as to the putative class claims. (Doc. No. 20 14.) Plaintiff Jodisue Singley initiated this action on May 12, 2026, asserting claims 21 individually and on behalf of a putative class. (Doc. No. 1.) On August 27, 2026, Plaintiff 22 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant stating that she “individually and on behalf 23 of all others similarly situated, hereby dismisses the above-captioned action against 24 Defendant Unity Wireless LLC, et al[.] with prejudice.” (Doc. No. 12.) That same day, the 25 Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended notice clarifying the particulars of the voluntary 26 dismissal separately as to the individual claims and the putative class claims. (Doc. No. 27 14.) Plaintiff filed the instant amended notice of voluntary dismissal the following day. 28 (Doc. No. 14.) l Plaintiff's amended notice of dismissal comports with the requirements of Fed. R. 2 || Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)Q) and Plaintiff is entitled to dismiss the individual claims without court 3 || order. In a class action, however, court approval of dismissal may be required under Rule 4 ||41(a)(2) if the class has been certified. Specifically, Rule 23(e) provides that any claims 5 || arising out of either a (1) “certified class” or (2) “class proposed to be certified for purposes 6 || of settlement . . . may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the 7 || court's approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (emphasis added). 8 Here, Plaintiff seeks to dismiss the individual claims with prejudice and the claims 9 || of the putative class without prejudice. (Doc. No. 14.) No class has been certified in this 10 action nor is there a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement. (See Doc. 11 ||Nos. 1, 14.) Because no class has been certified in this case, and because any dismissal 12 || would not affect putative class members’ possible claims, Rule 23(e) does not mandate 13 either Court approval of the parties’ stipulation to dismiss the action or notice to putative 14 ||class members. See Titus v. BlueChip Financial, 786 F. App’x 694, 695 (9th Cir. 2019) 15 || (‘Because no class has been certified, Titus is the only plaintiff before the court; once she 16 ||has dismissed her claims with prejudice, no other plaintiff can step into her shoes to 17 || continue this legal action’’) (unpublished) (citing Emp ’rs-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 18 || Pension Tr. Fund v. Anchor Capital Advisors, 498 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2007)). 19 In light of Plaintiff's filing, the Court finds that Rule 23(e) does not require the 20 || Court’s approval of dismissal. Accordingly, Plaintiff's individual claims are DISMISSED 21 || with prejudice and the putative class claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. The 22 || Clerk of the Court is directed to close this matter. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: August 28, 2026 © 25 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 26 United States District Judge 27 28