Pettersen v. Circle K Stores Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to vacate the court's prior order granting class certification, citing a settlement that resolved the lead plaintiff's claims and the inability to identify a new adequate class representative. The court granted the motion and vacated the class certification order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the joint motion to vacate the order granting class certification“Based upon the parties’ representations in the Joint Motion, and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion and VACATES the Court’s Class Certification Order. (Doc. 73.)” | agree with court The court correctly applied Rule 60(b)(6) as a catch-all provision to vacate the prior order. The factual basis provided—that the lead plaintiff's claims were settled and no other adequate representative could be identified—renders the class certification moot or legally unsupportable under Rule 23. Vacating the order is the appropriate procedural mechanism to allow the case to proceed to settlement or dismissal without the burden of a certified class. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for Rule 60(b)(6) relief and applies it to the specific facts of the settlement and lack of an adequate class representative. The reliance on the parties' joint representations is standard for such motions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 WILLIAM D. PETTERSEN, individually Case No.: 3:21-cv-00237-RBM-BGS and on behalf of all others similarly 11 situated, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 12 MOTION UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. Plaintiffs, 60(b)(6) TO VACATE ODER 13 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 14 v. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 15 CIRCLE K STORES, INC., an Arizona [Doc. 96] 16 Corporation, and DOES 1-10, Defendants. 17 18 19 20 Currently pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion under Federal Rule 21 of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to vacate order granting Plaintiff’s motion for class 22 certification (“Joint Motion”). (Doc. 96.) In the Joint Motion, the parties explain that, 23 during Defendant’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit challenging this Court’s Class Certification 24 Order (Doc. 73), they reached a settlement agreement to resolve Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. 25 96 at 2.) Specifically, the settlement agreement resolves Lead Plaintiff Pettersen’s claims, 26 without which the class lacks a representative. (Id.) As Plaintiff submitted in the parties’ 27 joint statement of facts, Plaintiff has been unable to identify “any other carton customer 28 that was purportedly misled by Circle K’s advertisements” and “Circle K is not aware of 1 any other customer that was purportedly misled by Circle K’s advertisements.” (Id. (citing 2 Doc. 86 ¶¶ 94, 95.).) Without an adequate class representative, the requirements of Rule 3 23 cannot be satisfied. (Id.) Accordingly, in light of the parties’ intended settlement, the 4 parties jointly request an order vacating this Court’s Class Certification Order. (Id.) The 5 parties also filed a stipulation to dismiss Defendant’s appeal without prejudice to 6 reinstatement and immediate issuance of mandate in the Ninth Circuit, which was granted, 7 and made dismissal of Defendant’s appeal conditional on the Court granting the instant 8 Joint Motion. (Id.) 9 Under Rule 60(b)(6) “[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its 10 legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for a number of reasons, 11 including “any other reason that justifies relief.” “Rule 60(b)(6) is a ‘catch-all’ provision 12 that ‘vests power in courts adequate to enable them to vacate judgments whenever such 13 action is appropriate to accomplish justice.’” Jung Ai Shin v. U.S.C.I.S., No. CV 12-2839- 14 GHK (SSx), 2013 WL 571781, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2013) (citations omitted). 15 Based upon the parties’ representations in the Joint Motion, and for good cause 16 shown, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion and VACATES the Court’s Class 17 Certification Order. (Doc. 73.) 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 DATE: January 23, 2024 20 _____________________________________ HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28