Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02591/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02591-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

AREZOU MANSOURIAN; LAUREN 

MANCUSO; NANCY NIEN-LI

CHIANG; CHRISTINE WING-SI NG;

and all those similarly

situated,

NO. CIV. S-03-2591 FCD EFB

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

at DAVIS; LAWRENCE “LARRY”

VANDERHOEF; GREG WARZECKA;

PAM GILL-FISHER; ROBERT

FRANKS; and LAWRENCE SWANSON,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ motion for

voluntary dismissal of class claims and a determination that

notice to the uncertified class is not required pursuant to Rule

23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants have

filed a statement of non-opposition to plaintiffs’ motion. 

Having read and considered all the papers submitted in support of

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 06/12/07 Page 1 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

1 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

2

the motion as well as other pleadings and papers on file in this

case,1 plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal is GRANTED.

Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not

require notice of pre-certification dismissal except where the

court concludes that such notice is necessary for one or more of

the following reasons: (1) to protect defendants by preventing

plaintiffs from appending class allegations merely to obtain a

more favorable settlement; (2) to protect the class from

objectionable structural relief or depletion of funds available

to pay class claims, e.g., through collusive settlement; and/or

(3) to protect the class from prejudice based on their reliance

on the filing or pendency of the action. Diaz v. Trust Territory

of Pacific Islands, 876 F.2d 1401, 1409-10 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Having considered each of the factors set forth in Diaz in the

circumstances of this case, notice to absent members of the

putative class is not required here.

First, no class has been certified and the named plaintiffs

in this case have determined not to further prosecute the class

claims in this action. Second, plaintiffs’ class claims in this

action never sought damages on behalf of the members of the

class. Class relief was limited on all claims to equitable

relief in the form of injunction and declaratory relief. 

Moreover, the proposed dismissal in this case is unconnected to

any settlement favoring the named plaintiffs. Third, after the

court denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 06/12/07 Page 2 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

3

to add proposed plaintiffs, those individuals have determined to

file their own action on behalf of currently enrolled women at UC

Davis. Finally, any members of the proposed class will either be

in the position of current plaintiffs, having graduated from UC

Davis and no longer having a personal stake in injunctive relief,

or, if they are still students, will be represented as putative

class members in the new action.

As such, the court concludes that notice to the uncertified

class is not required. There is no prejudice to defendants or to

the putative class (1) because plaintiff and its counsel have

determined, based on their evaluation of this matter, not to

further prosecute the class claims in this case; and (2) because 

of the expense and burden of providing notice to absent members

of the uncertified class. See George W. v. U.S. Dept. of Educ.,

149 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 1202 (E.D. Cal. 2000) (“Notice serves no

purpose when judgment is entered against a plaintiff before a

class has been properly certified and notified, for it is binding

only on the named plaintiff.”) (citing Besinga v. United States,

923 F. 2d 133, 136 (9th Cir. 1991)). Accordingly, the class

claims in this action are dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 12, 2007

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 06/12/07 Page 3 of 3