Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00407/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00407-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.
Defendant
Mark Frizzell
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARK FRIZZELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-00407-KJM-CKD 

ORDER 

This matter came before the court on the parties’ joint stipulation for dismissal of 

this putative class action with prejudice. ECF No. 18. For the following reasons and as described 

below, the court approves the stipulation and dismisses this action with prejudice. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs the litigation of class actions in federal 

court. Rule 23(e) includes several provisions on the settlement and voluntary dismissal of class 

actions, but that subsection requires the court’s approval of a settlement only when a class has 

been certified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (“The claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may 

be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court’s approval.”); see also id.

advisory comm. notes to 2003 am. (“The new rule requires approval only if the claims, issues, or 

defenses of a certified class are resolved by a settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise.”). 

Case 2:15-cv-00407-KJM-CKD Document 19 Filed 09/15/15 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 

2

Because no class has been certified in this case, the court need not approve the parties’ settlement 

agreement. 

Nevertheless, Rule 23(d)(1) allows the court to “issue orders that . . . require—to 

protect class members and fairly conduct the action—giving appropriate notice to some or all 

class members of . . . any step in the action . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1)(B)(i); see also Del Rio 

v. CreditAnswers, LLC, No. 10CV346, 2011 WL 1869881, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 16, 2011). 

Similarly, the court may also consider “‘whether the proposed settlement and dismissal are 

tainted by collusion or will prejudice absent putative members with a reasonable reliance 

expectation of the maintenance of the action for the protection of their interests,’” and the court 

may “‘inquire into possible prejudice from . . . lack of adequate time for class members to file 

other actions, because of a rapidly approaching statute of limitations.’” Del Rio, 2011 WL 

1869881, at *2 (quoting Diaz v. Trust Territory of Pac. Islands, 876 F.2d 1401, 1407–08 & n.3 

(9th Cir. 1989)); accord Lewis v. Vision Value, LLC, No. 11-01055, 2012 WL 2930867, at *3 

(E.D. Cal. July 18, 2012)). 

Here, the court is satisfied that dismissal of this action will result in no prejudice to 

the putative or represented class members. This is not a widely publicized case, and potential 

class members are unlikely to have relied on this action to vindicate their interests. See, e.g., 

Castro v. Zenith Acquisition Corp., No. 06-04163, 2007 WL 81905, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 

2007). Moreover, “the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of 

limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been 

permitted to continue as a class action.” Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 554 

(1974). And perhaps most importantly, another case currently pending in Solano County 

Superior Court, Stafford v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. FC5043461 (Solano Cnty. Super. Ct. 

filed May 7, 2014), is essentially this case’s duplicate. See Diaz, 876 F.2d at 1411 (dismissal of 

an uncertified class action without notice to the class may be appropriate when an identical class 

action is pending in another court (citing Larkin General Hospital, 93 F.R.D. 497 (E.D. Pa. 

1982)). 

Case 2:15-cv-00407-KJM-CKD Document 19 Filed 09/15/15 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

All claims, excluding the complaint’s fifth claim, are dismissed with prejudice. 

The fifth claim, for violation of California Labor Code Section 2698 et seq., is dismissed with 

prejudice for (1) all plaintiff Mark Frizzell’s individual claims under Labor Code Section 2698 et 

seq., and (2) all of Frizzell’s rights under Labor Code Section 2698 et seq. to represent any other 

putative aggrieved employees. This action is DISMISSED. CASE CLOSED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 15, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00407-KJM-CKD Document 19 Filed 09/15/15 Page 3 of 3