Scheibe v. Performance Enhancing Supplements, LLC

District Court, S.D. California · 3:23-cv-00219 · 2023-10-24 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Marilyn L. Huff (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:47Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a joint notice of voluntary dismissal filed by the plaintiff and defendant in a putative class action. The court ordered the plaintiff's individual claims dismissed with prejudice and the putative class claims dismissed without prejudice, closing the case.

What the court decided	The model
Dismissal of plaintiff's individual claims with prejudice and putative class claims without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). “Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs individual claims with prejudice and dismisses the putative class claims without prejudice.”	agree with court The order correctly applies Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows voluntary dismissal without a court order if a stipulation is signed by all parties who have appeared. The order recites that counsel for the defendant signed the notice and agreed to the dismissal, satisfying the rule's requirements. The distinction between dismissing individual claims with prejudice and class claims without prejudice is consistent with the parties' request and the fact that no class was certified.

What the court decided

The model

Dismissal of plaintiff's individual claims with prejudice and putative class claims without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

“Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs individual claims with prejudice and dismisses the putative class claims without prejudice.”

agree with court
The order correctly applies Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows voluntary dismissal without a court order if a stipulation is signed by all parties who have appeared. The order recites that counsel for the defendant signed the notice and agreed to the dismissal, satisfying the rule's requirements. The distinction between dismissing individual claims with prejudice and class claims without prejudice is consistent with the parties' request and the fact that no class was certified.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable rule for voluntary dismissal and verifies that the procedural requirements (stipulation by all parties) were met. It also correctly analyzes the applicability of Rule 23(e), concluding it does not apply because no class was certified or proposed to be certified for settlement purposes. The court cites relevant district court cases and the Ninth Circuit's Diaz decision to support this conclusion. The reasoning is complete and directly addresses the motion.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JACOB SCHEIBE, individually and on Case No.: 3:23-cv-00219-H-DDL 12 behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 13 Plaintiff(s), VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 14 v. PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)

15 PERFORMANCE ENHANCING

SUPPLEMENTS, LLC, dba PEScience, a 16 [Doc. No. 22.] Delaware limited liability company, 17 Defendant. 18 19 On June 26, 2023, Plaintiff Jacob Scheibe (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf 20 of all others similarly situated, filed a first amended class action complaint against 21 Defendant Performance Enhancing Supplements, LLC, dba PEScience (“PES”). (Doc. No. 22 12.) On September 21, 2023, the parties filed a joint notice of settlement. (Doc. No. 19.) 23 On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal 24 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (Doc. No. 22.) The notice requested that 25 Plaintiff’s individual claims be dismissed with prejudice and the putative class claims be 26 dismissed without prejudice. (Id.) 27 Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a 28 1 || court order so long as the plaintiff files a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who 2 ||have appeared in the action.! Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Here, Plaintiff states that 3 has reviewed and stipulated to the dismissal. (Doc. No. 22.) Counsel for PES signed 4 ||the notice of dismissal and represented that PES has seen and agreed to the voluntary 5 ||dismissal. (Id.) Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs individual claims with 6 || prejudice and dismisses the putative class claims without prejudice. The Court instructs 7 Clerk of Court to close the case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 DATED: October 24, 2023 lu 10 MARILYN ©. HUFF, Distri ge 1] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 A dismissal under Rule 41(a) is subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). Rule 23(e) provides: “The claims, issues, or defenses of a 19 || certified class—or a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement—may be 0 settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court’s approval.” Fed. Civ. P. 23(e). Because no class has been certified in this case or is proposed to be certified as 21 of Plaintiffs voluntary dismissal, Rule 23(e) does not apply to Plaintiffs request to 9 dismiss the action. See Lee v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 320CV01923 BENDEB, 2021 WL 308283, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2021); Hall v. W. Ref. Retail, LLC, No. 23 519CVO0855VAPSKX, 2021 WL 4497925, at *1 n.1 (C.D. Cal. June 23, 2021); see also A Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) advisory committee’s note to 2003 amendment (“The new rule requires approval only if the claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class are resolved by 25 settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise.”); but see Albers v. Yarbrough World %6 Sols., LLC, No. 5:19-CV-05896-EJD, 2021 WL 1925520, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2021) (“The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 23(e) also applies before certification, but in a much 27 || lighter form that does not entail ‘the kind of substantive oversight required when reviewing {18 settlement binding upon the class.’” (quoting Diaz v. Trust Territory of Pac. Islands, 876 F.2d 1401, 1408 (9th Cir. 1989)).