Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00270/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00270-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:0227(b)(3) Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991

---

1

17-cv-00270-H-JLB

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TANEESHA CROOKS, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

CMRE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-cv-00270-H-JLB

ORDER GRANTING JOINT 

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH 

PREJUDICE AS TO NAMED 

PLAINTIFF AND WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE AS TO PUTATIVE 

CLASS

[Doc. No. 31]

On February 10, 2017, Plaintiff Taneesha Crooks (“Plaintiff Crooks”) brought this 

case as a class action, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 

U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (Doc. No. 1.) On April 28, 2017, Defendant CMRE Financial 

Services, Inc. (“Defendant”), filed its answer. (Doc. No. 7.) On October 20, 2017, Plaintiff 

Crooks filed a notice of settlement. (Doc. No. 26.) On January 17, 2018, Plaintiff Crooks 

and Defendant filed a joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice as to Plaintiff 

Crooks and without prejudice as to the putative class, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (Doc. No. 31.) The putative class was never certified.

The Court has considered the factors identified in Diaz v. Trust Territory of the 

Pacific Islands and is satisfied that dismissal would not be “collusive or prejudicial” to the 

Case 3:17-cv-00270-H-JLB Document 33 Filed 01/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17-cv-00270-H-JLB

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

putative class members. See 876 F.2d 1401, 1408 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Hardman v. TriFinancial, LLC, No. 09-CV-0081, 2010 WL 11508879 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2010) (applying 

Diaz to pre-certification motion for dismissal of class action); id. at *1 n.1 (collecting cases 

doing same). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the joint motion. This action is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff Crooks and DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE as to the putative class.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 18, 2018

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:17-cv-00270-H-JLB Document 33 Filed 01/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2