Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00055/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00055-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
POSITEC USA, INC.
Defendant
Keith Patterson
Plaintiff
RW Direct, INC
Defendant

Document Text:

JOINT REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

Brian S. Kabateck, SBN. 152054

bsk@kbklawyers.com

Christopher Noyes, SBN. 270094

cn@kbklawyers.com

Joana Fang, Esq. SBN. 309623

jf@kbklawyers.com

KABATECK LLP

633 W. 5th. Street, Suite 3200

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Telephone: (213) 217-5000

Facsimile: (213) 217-5010

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

KEITH PATTERSON, individually, and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

RW DIRECT, INC., POSITEC USA, 

INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-00055

The Hon. Vince Chhabria

JOINT REQUEST FOR DIMISSAL

PER RULE 23(e); [PROPOSED] 

ORDER

(Filed concurrently with Declaration of 

Joana Fang)

Case 3:18-cv-00055-VC Document 82 Filed 10/23/19 Page 1 of 4
1

JOINT REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

JOINT REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

Plaintiff KEITH PATTERSON (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) and Defendants RW 

DIRECT, INC. and POSITEC USA, INC. (hereinafter, “Defendants”) by and 

through their respective counsel of record hereby submit this request for dismissal 

and request an order from the Court dismissing the above captioned case with 

prejudice.

WHEREAS, on January 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed a proposed class action 

against Defendants involving the WORX WG782 14-Inch 24 Volt Cordless Mower 

(“WORX mower”), in the United States District Court, Northern District of 

California, Case No. 3:18-cv-00055 (“Complaint”) alleging claims for (1) Breach 

of Express Warranty, (2) Breach of Implied Warranty, (3) Breach of Express 

Warranty (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act) (4) Declaratory Judgment Act (28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201(a), et. seq., (5) Breach of Express Warranty (Song-Beverly 

Consumer Warranty Act), (6) Breach of Implied Warranty (Song-Beverly 

Consumer Warranty Act), (7) Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 

1750, et. seq.), (8) Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), (9) 

Breach of Express Warranty Under Cal. U. Com. Code § 2313), and (10) Breach of 

Implied Warranty Under Cal. U. Com. Code § 2314 (Declaration of Joana Fang 

“Dec of JF,” ¶2);

WHEREAS, the proposed class is not certified in this matter and no motion 

for certification has been made or is pending (Dec of JF, ¶3);

WHEREAS, based on the limited exposure of this case in the press, it is 

highly unlikely that any putative class member has relied on the filing of this action. 

Furthermore, no putative class members have filed any other action, or contacted 

any of the parties, or sought to intervene in this action (Dec of JF, ¶4);

WHEREAS, class counsel is unaware of the identities of any putative class 

members and therefore, cannot notify the unnamed class members of the dismissal

Case 3:18-cv-00055-VC Document 82 Filed 10/23/19 Page 2 of 4
2

JOINT REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

if required to do so (Dec of JF, ¶5);

WHEREAS, class counsel is not aware of any danger that absent class 

members will be prejudiced by a “rapidly approaching statute of limitations.” The 

filing of a class action on both federal and state law claims tolls the applicable 

statute of limitations for members of the putative class (See Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. 

v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 553-554 (1974)) (Dec of JF, ¶6);

WHEREAS, the interests of putative class members are not being 

compromised by Plaintiff’s individual settlement as it was reached after testing 

conducted on Plaintiff’s WORX mower by Plaintiff’s expert did not substantiate the 

alleged defect claims (Dec of JF, ¶7); and

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to the dismissal of this action on the 

following terms (i) dismissal of Plaintiff’s individual claims with prejudice, (ii) 

dismissal of the putative class claims without prejudice to class members, and (iii) 

for Plaintiff and Defendant to each bear their respective attorney’s fees and costs of 

suit (Dec of JF, ¶8).

Dated: October 22, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

KABATECK LLP

By: /s/ Joana Fang

Counsel for Plaintiff and the 

Proposed Class

Dated: October 22, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

NELSON MULLINS RILEY

& SCARBOROUGH, LLP

By: /s/ William H. Latham

Counsel for Defendants

Case 3:18-cv-00055-VC Document 82 Filed 10/23/19 Page 3 of 4
3

JOINT REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The foregoing Joint Request for Dismissal of the parties is accepted and 

approved, and this action is hereby dismissed on the following terms (i) dismissal

of Plaintiff’s individual claims with prejudice, (ii) dismissal of the putative class 

claims without prejudice to class members, and (iii) for Plaintiff and Defendant to 

each bear their respective attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _______________________ ____________________________

The Hon. Vince Chhabria

October 23, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00055-VC Document 82 Filed 10/23/19 Page 4 of 4