Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00478/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00478-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STACY SCIORTINO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PEPSICO, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00478-EMC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

WITHDRAW; ORDER DEFERRING 

RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS; AND ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE

Docket Nos. 119, 125

Currently pending before the Court are two motions: (1) Plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead 

Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Kelly Ree and (2) Defendant 

PepsiCo’s motion to dismiss Ms. Ree as a plaintiff from this case. Having considered the papers 

submitted (no papers have been filed by Ms. Ree), the Court finds the matter suitable for 

disposition on the papers and therefore VACATES the hearing set for December 7, 2015. The 

Court hereby rules as follows.

A. Motion to Withdraw

Plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED. 

Counsel has established an adequate basis for its request to withdraw. Ms. Ree was given notice 

of the motion, see Docket No. 128 (proof of service), but has not filed any opposition thereto. 

If Counsel has any additional or updated contact information for Ms. Ree, it shall 

immediately provide that information to the Court. 

B. Motion to Dismiss and Order to Show Cause

Based on the same basic circumstances that led to the above motion to withdraw (e.g., Ms. 

Case 3:14-cv-00478-EMC Document 134 Filed 11/30/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Ree’s failure to provide discovery responses), PepsiCo has asked the Court to dismiss Ms. Ree, 

without prejudice, as a plaintiff from the case. PepsiCo contends that, “[a]t a minimum, an order 

asking Ms. Ree to show cause why her claims should not be dismissed is appropriate to ensure 

that this action continues to be litigated in a timely and orderly fashion.” Mot. at 3. In the 

alternative, PepsiCo asks the Court to strike Ms. Ree as a putative class representative, if only 

because a pro se litigant cannot represent a class. See, e.g., Rudgayzer v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 5:12-

CV-01399 EJD, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161302, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2012) (noting that 

“[c]ourts have generally concluded that a purported class representative who proceeds pro se 

violates [Rule 23’s] test of adequacy of representation; in order words, a pro se plaintiff cannot 

represent a class in a class action”).

The Court agrees that Ms. Ree cannot be a putative class representative in the case in light 

of her current pro se status. But, as PepsiCo argues, it is not clear that she should be a plaintiff in 

this case. Ms. Ree’s continued status as a plaintiff in this case is also troubling in light of the fact 

that PepsiCo gave her notice of its motion to dismiss, see Docket Nos. 126-27 (proofs of service), 

but she has filed no opposition in response. Out of an abundance of caution, however, the Court 

shall issue an order to show cause rather than dismiss Ms. Ree outright.

More specifically, the Court hereby orders Ms. Ree to show cause as to why she 

should not be dismissed, without prejudice, as a plaintiff from this case. Ms. Ree shall file 

her response to this order within three weeks of the date of this order. If no response is filed 

by this date, then the Court shall dismiss her as a plaintiff. 

To be clear, however, if the Court does dismiss Ms. Ree as a plaintiff, that will have no 

effect on her status as a putative class member, including but not limited to her right to statute-oflimitations tolling. If PepsiCo takes issue with this approach, then it shall file a brief 

addressing the issue within three weeks of the date of this order.

Because of this order to show cause, the Court DEFERS ruling on PepsiCo’s motion to 

dismiss.

The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on Kelly Ree at the following 

address: 3213 Larkspur Street, Tustin, CA 92782, (213) 386-1875, kellysree@aol.com.

Case 3:14-cv-00478-EMC Document 134 Filed 11/30/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel is also instructed to immediately give notice of this 

order to Ms. Ree.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 119 and 125.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00478-EMC Document 134 Filed 11/30/15 Page 3 of 3