Free Motion to Dismiss - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02126-BEN-RBB

Document 38

Filed 09/17/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 Jay Edelson Ethan Preston (pro hac vice) 2 KAMBEREDELSON LLC 53 West Jackson Ave., Suite 550 3 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 589-6370 4 [email protected] [email protected] 5 Counsel for Plaintiffs 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 JASON DEMAS and JOHN RENNINGER, on their own behalves and on behalf of all 9 others similarly situated, 10 11 v. Plaintiffs, No. 07cv2126-BEN(RBB) STIPULATED DISMISSAL Judge Roger T. Benitez

12 SONY ELECTRONICS, INC., a Delaware corporation, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Stipulated Dismissal No. 07cv2126-BEN(RBB)

Case 3:07-cv-02126-BEN-RBB

Document 38

Filed 09/17/2008

Page 2 of 3

1 2

STIPULATED DISMISSAL Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiffs Jason Demas and John Renninger

3 ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant Sony Electronics, Inc. ("SEL") stipulate to the dismissal of this 4 action with prejudice. 5 The parties have executed an settlement agreement compromised Plaintiffs' claims on

6 an individual basis. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) does not require court approval of a stipulated 7 dismissal. In 2003, Rule 23 was amended to eliminate an ambiguity which led certain courts 8 to require court approval of uncertified class claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 advisory 9 committee notes on 2003 amendments. The current version of Rule 23 explicitly limits the 10 requirements of court approval and class notice to certified class claims. See id. (citing 11 Manual for Complex Litigation § 30.41 (3d ed. 1995)). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(A) 12 (court approval required only for "any settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise of the 13 claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class") (emphasis added); Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B) 14 (class notice required only for "class members who would be bound by a proposed settlement, 15 voluntary dismissal, or compromise"). The settlement and dismissal of Plaintiffs' individual 16 claims does not require court approval or class notice under Rule 23(e). 17 In any event, Judge Borman (who presides over Date v. Sony Electronics, Inc., No.

18 2:07-cv-15474-PDB-RSW, in the Eastern District of Michigan) has approved the settlement 19 and dismissal of the class claims which Plaintiffs previously asserted. (See Dkt. 36.) As SEL 20 previously advised this Court, Judge Borman has preliminarily approved that settlement on 21 July 25, 2008. (See Dkt. 36.) Likewise, the Date settlement provides for notice to the class of 22 the compromise and dismissal of the class claims asserted in this action and the Date action. 23 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). 24 There is no just reason to delay the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims and the effectuation

25 of their settlement. 26 27 28
Stipulated Dismissal 1 No. 07cv2126-BEN(RBB)

Case 3:07-cv-02126-BEN-RBB

Document 38

Filed 09/17/2008

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: September 17, 2008 By: s/Ethan Preston Ethan Preston (admitted pro hac) KAMBEREDELSON LLC 53 West Jackson Ave., Suite 1530 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 589-6370 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dated: September 17, 2008 By: s/Ronald A Valenzuela Ronald A Valenzuela Heller Ehrman LLP 333 South Hope Street 39th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3043 (213) 689-0200 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant

Stipulated Dismissal

2

No. 07cv2126-BEN(RBB)