Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ALVARADO, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDEX CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-00098 SI

No. C 04-00099 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

By letter filed October 17, 2005, plaintiffs Alexander Rivera, Dyronn Theodore and Gary White

request dismissal without prejudice. Plaintiffs state that they wish to participate in the pending class action,

Satchell et al. v. FedEx Corporation, 03-2659 SI. Defendant opposes the request.

The Court hereby DENIES plaintiffs’ request. Plaintiffs filed their individual actions after the Satchell

class action was filed, and thus made the choice to pursue individual litigation outside the class context.

Considerable discovery has already taken place in the individual actions, and the parties have extensively

briefed summary judgment motions with respect to all three plaintiffs. Oral argument on defendant’s motion

for summary judgment on plaintiff Theodore is scheduled for November 10, 2005, and oral argument on the

motions with respect to plaintiffs White and Rivera is scheduled for November 21, 2005. 

Dismissalunder FederalRule ofCivil Procedure 41(a)(2)is committed to the “sound discretion” ofthe

Court. Stevedoring Servs. of America v. Armilla Intern. B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiffs

have provided no persuasive reason for dismissalwithout prejudice at this advanced stage ofthe litigation, and

the Court concludes that dismissal without prejudice would be unfair to defendant. See id.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ request for dismissal without prejudice is DENIED. [# 298].

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 301 Filed 10/19/05 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2005 

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 301 Filed 10/19/05 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ALVARADO, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDEX CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-00098 SI

No. C 04-00099 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

By letter filed October 17, 2005, plaintiffs Alexander Rivera, Dyronn Theodore and Gary White

request dismissal without prejudice. Plaintiffs state that they wish to participate in the pending class action,

Satchell et al. v. FedEx Corporation, 03-2659 SI. Defendant opposes the request.

The Court hereby DENIES plaintiffs’ request. Plaintiffs filed their individual actions after the Satchell

class action was filed, and thus made the choice to pursue individual litigation outside the class context.

Considerable discovery has already taken place in the individual actions, and the parties have extensively

briefed summary judgment motions with respect to all three plaintiffs. Oral argument on defendant’s motion

for summary judgment on plaintiff Theodore is scheduled for November 10, 2005, and oral argument on the

motions with respect to plaintiffs White and Rivera is scheduled for November 21, 2005. 

Dismissalunder FederalRule ofCivil Procedure 41(a)(2)is committed to the “sound discretion” ofthe

Court. Stevedoring Servs. of America v. Armilla Intern. B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiffs

have provided no persuasive reason for dismissalwithout prejudice at this advanced stage ofthe litigation, and

the Court concludes that dismissal without prejudice would be unfair to defendant. See id.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ request for dismissal without prejudice is DENIED. [# 298].

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 301 Filed 10/19/05 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2005 

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 301 Filed 10/19/05 Page 4 of 4