Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00281/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00281-39/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT RAMIREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CINTAS CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-00281 JSW

ORDER GRANTING

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO

APPROVE STIPULATION OF

DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF

CORETTA VICK’S INDIVIDUAL

AND CLASS CLAIMS

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of an unopposed motion to

approve a stipulation of dismissal of Plaintiff Coretta Vick’s individual and class claims. 

Having considered the parties’ papers, including supplemental materials ordered by the Court,

relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, and having had the benefit of oral argument. 

The Court HEREBY GRANTS the motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging employment discrimination against

Cintas Corporation (“Cintas”) on January 20, 2004. Plaintiff Coretta Vick (“Ms. Vick”)

asserted individual and class claims alleging pay discrimination based on her race (AfricanAmerican) and sought to represent a class consisting of African-American office and clerical

workers at Cintas. On March 22, 2005, this Court issued an Order requiring Ms. Vick and

several other plaintiffs to arbitrate the claims against Cintas. Plaintiffs have instituted an 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 235 Filed 12/14/07 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

arbitration, on behalf of themselves and the classes they seek to represent, which currently is

pending. Neither this Court nor the Arbitrator have certified a class. Ms. Vick has settled her

individual claims with Cintas and now asks this Court to approve the dismissal of her individual

and class claims without notice. Cintas does not oppose the motion. 

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), “[t]he claims, issues, or defenses of a

certified class may be settled, voluntarily dismiss, or compromised only with the court’s

approval.” Although Rule 23(e) expressly refers to certified classes, before Rule 23(e) was

amended in 2003, the Ninth Circuit had held that the rule applied to pre-certification dismissals

and compromises. Diaz v. Trust Territory of the Pac. Islands, 876 F.2d 1401, 1408 (9th Cir.

1989). In that case, the court stated that pre-certification approval was required “to ensure that

[a settlement] is not collusive or prejudicial.” Id. In making that determination, the Ninth

Circuit stated that “the district court should inquire into possible prejudice from (1) class

members possible reliance on the filing of the action if they are likely to know of it either

because of publicity or other circumstances, (2) lack of adequate time for class members to file

other actions, because of a rapidly approaching statute of limitations, and (3) any settlement or

concession for class interests made by the class representative or counsel in order to further

their own interests.” Id. 

Plaintiffs state that they have filed their motion “as a cautionary step,” in light of several

decisions arising out of this district, which have approved pre-certification dismissals relying on

factors outlined in Diaz. See, e.g., Castro v. Zenith Acquisition Corp., 2007 WL 81905 (N.D.

Cal. Jan. 9, 2007); Singer v. Am. Airlines Fed. Credit Union, 2006 WL 3093759 (N.D. Cal. Oct.

30, 2006). 

Assuming without deciding that Rule 23 applies in this instance, the Court concludes

that, based on the factors outlined in Diaz, it is appropriate to grant the motion and permit Ms.

Vick to dismiss her individual and class claims without notice. First, although there has been

some publicity regarding this case and articles in which Ms. Vick was mentioned, it has been

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 235 Filed 12/14/07 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

minimal. Further, Plaintiffs assert that no other persons who are members of the class Ms. Vick

sought to represent have contacted them. 

Second, the parties do not seek to dismiss the class claims with prejudice and, therefore,

they are not impacting the rights of potential class members. With respect to her individual

claims, a review of the settlement agreement strongly suggests that Ms. Vick is not receiving a

disproportionate recovery that might impact absent class members. 

Third, the statute of limitations has been tolled since the suit was filed. See American

Pine and Construction v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974). Potential class members who may have

relied on Ms. Vick’s claims still have time to file suit if they so choose. Thus, the Court finds

that each of the Diaz factors weighs in favor of approving the settlement and dismissal without

notice to the class. 

The motion is, therefore, GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 235 Filed 12/14/07 Page 3 of 3