Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01459/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01459-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

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

BRADFORD F. GINDER (St. Bar No. 065929) 

MARCUS S. BIRD (St. Bar No. 147463) 

HOLLISTER & BRACE 

A Professional Corporation

1126 Santa Barbara Street 

Post Office Box 630 

Santa Barbara, CA 93102 

Telephone: (805) 963-6711

Facsimile: (805) 965-0329

E-Mail: bginder@hbsb.com

 msbird@hbsb.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Damon Allen, Zak Ammirato, James

Greenfield, Michael McGee and Mark 

Madden; Individually and on Behalf of All 

Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

FleetBoston Financial Corporation, et al.

Defendants.

USDC No. C 03-1459 MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF

DISMISSAL

JUDGE: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), the above-captioned matter is voluntarily 

dismissed with the parties to bear their own costs and fees. Such dismissal shall be with prejudice 

only with respect to the named plaintiffs. 

This dismissal is not intended to prejudice or affect any rights of any putative class 

members in the uncertified class. The rights and claims of the uncertified putative class, which 

have been tolled through operation of law, see American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 

U.S. 538, 553-554, 38 L. Ed. 2d 713, 94 S. Ct. 756 (1974), are unaffected by this dismissal.

See also, Aikens v. Deluxe Fin. Servs., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8079 at * 16 (D. Kan., 2005) 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL – Page 1 of 2

Case 3:03-cv-01459-MMC Document 103 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 2
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

(approving voluntary dismissal of uncertified class and noting the absence of prejudice to the 

putative class because, among other reasons, “[i]t is undisputed that claims of the putative class 

are tolled during pendency of the class certification.”).

PURSUANT TO PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March ___, 2006 ____________________________________________ Hon. Maxine M. Chesney 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL – Page 2 of 2

17

Case 3:03-cv-01459-MMC Document 103 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2