Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02203/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02203-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

JUVENAL RIOS, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiff,

v

AIRBORNE EXPRESS INC, et al, 

Defendant. /

No C-05-2092 VRW

Related to case no

C-05-2203 VRW

ORDER

Juvanal Rios, class representative in this putative class

action, has filed notices of voluntary dismissal pursuant to FRCP

41(a)(1). Doc #75 of 05-2092; Doc #62 of 05-2203. 

FRCP 23(e)(1)(B) provides that the court “must direct

notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would by

bound by a proposed settlement, voluntary dismissal, or

compromise.” FRCP 23(e)(1)(B). Accordingly, to implicate the

mandatory notice rule, the dismissal must “bind the class through

claim or issue preclusion.” See Rule 23(e), Advisory Committee

Notes. 

//

Case 3:05-cv-02203-VRW Document 63 Filed 08/11/06 Page 1 of 3
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

When FRCP 23(e) does not apply, the court has discretion

to compel notice to other class members under FRCP 23(d)(2) (“the

court may make appropriate orders * * * requiring, for the

protection of the members of the class or otherwise for the fair

conduct of the action, that notice be given in such manner as the

court may direct to some or all of the members of any step in the

action”). This discretion is appropriate when the lack of notice

induces other class members to rely on the activity of the class

representative, thereby prejudicing their ability to bring

independent actions on their claims. Shelton v Pargo, Inc, 582 F2d

1298, 1314 (4th Cir 1978); see also Wright & Miller, Federal

Practice and Procedure § 1797.6. 

For both cases here, plaintiff dismisses the class

allegations without prejudice. Doc #75 of 05-2092; Doc #62 of 05-

2203. Hence, this voluntary dismissal does not preclude other

class members from bringing suit and does not trigger Rule 23(e)’s

mandatory notice rule. Nevertheless, plaintiff fails to show that

voluntary dismissal does not prejudice absent class members by

having induced their reliance on the pendency of these actions. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-02203-VRW Document 63 Filed 08/11/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, plaintiff is ORDERED to submit an

application, not to exceed twenty pages, supporting his request for

the court’s approval of voluntary dismissal of these actions on or

before August 31, 2006. The application shall explain how

potential prejudice to class members who may have relied on the

pendency of these actions can be avoided, through notice to the

putative class or that notice is not necessary in the present case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02203-VRW Document 63 Filed 08/11/06 Page 3 of 3