Uribe v. Capital One, N.A.

District Court, S.D. California · 3:23-cv-01297 · 2024-03-12 · Unknown

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

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:37Z · confidence high

The court considered a joint notice of voluntary dismissal filed by the plaintiff and defendant, which requested that individual claims be dismissed with prejudice and putative class claims be dismissed without prejudice. The court granted the motion, dismissing the individual claims with prejudice and the putative class claims without prejudice, and ordered the case closed.

What the court decided	The model
Granting the joint notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), dismissing Plaintiff's individual claims with prejudice and putative class claims without prejudice. “Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's individual claims with prejudice and dismisses the putative class claims without prejudice, each side to bear its own costs.”	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 notes that counsel for both parties signed the notice. The court's analysis regarding Rule 23(e) is legally sound; because no class had been certified, the strict approval requirements of Rule 23(e) for certified classes did not apply to the dismissal of the putative class claims, consistent with the cited Ninth Circuit authority (Diaz v. Trust Territory of Pac. Islands) and district court precedents.

What the court decided

The model

Granting the joint notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), dismissing Plaintiff's individual claims with prejudice and putative class claims without prejudice.

“Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's individual claims with prejudice and dismisses the putative class claims without prejudice, each side to bear its own costs.”

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 notes that counsel for both parties signed the notice. The court's analysis regarding Rule 23(e) is legally sound; because no class had been certified, the strict approval requirements of Rule 23(e) for certified classes did not apply to the dismissal of the putative class claims, consistent with the cited Ninth Circuit authority (Diaz v. Trust Territory of Pac. Islands) and district court precedents.

The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate rules and case law to support its decision. It correctly identifies that Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permits dismissal via stipulation and correctly analyzes the applicability of Rule 23(e) in the absence of class certification.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CUAHTEMOC VICTOR URIBE, Case No.: 23-cv-01297-H-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING VOLUNTARY 13 v. DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) 14 CAPITAL ONE, N.A. d/b/a CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE; and DOES 1-10, 15 [Doc. No. 18.] Defendants. 16 17 18 On July 14, 2023, Plaintiff Cuahtemoc Victor Uribe (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint 19 against Defendant Capital One, N.A. d/b/a Capital One Auto Finance (“Defendant”). (Doc. 20 No. 1.) On October 17, 2023, Defendant filed a notice of settlement. (Doc. No. 8.) On 21 February 29, 2024, the parties filed a joint notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal 22 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (Doc. No. 18.) The notice requested that 23 Plaintiff’s individual claims be dismissed with prejudice and the putative class claims be 24 dismissed without prejudice. (Id.) 25 Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a 26 court order so long as the plaintiff files a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who 27 28 1 || have appeared in the action.! Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Here, counsel for both parties 2 ||have signed the notice of dismissal. (Doc. No. 18.) Accordingly, the Court dismisses 3 || Plaintiff's individual claims with prejudice and dismisses the putative class claims without 4 || prejudice, each side to bear its own costs. The Court instructs the Clerk of Court to close 5 || the case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || DATED: March 12, 2024 lu 8 MARILYN ¥W. HUFF, Distri ge 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 1] 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 Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal, Rule 23(e) does not apply to Plaintiff's 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)).