Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-00392/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-00392-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ally Financial Inc.
Defendant
John Trompeter
Plaintiff

Document Text:

07462.0375/4063375.1 1

STIPULATION TO LIFT STAY AND DISMISS ACTION 

Case No. 12-0392-JST

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

JOHN B. SULLIVAN (State Bar No. 96742)

REBECCA S. SAELAO (State Bar No. 222731)

SEVERSON & WERSON

A Professional Corporation

One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 398-3344

Facsimile: (415) 956-0439

E-mail: jbs@severson.com

rss@severson.com

Attorneys for Defendant, Ally Financial Inc.

THOMAS A. KEARNEY (State Bar No. 90045)

PRESCOTT LITTLEFIELD (State Bar No. 259049)

KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD LLP

3436 N. Verdugo Rd., Ste. 230

Glendale, CA 91208

Telephone: (213) 473-1900; Fax: (213) 473-1919

E-mail:tak@kearneylittlefield.com

pwl@kearneylittlefield.com

Attorney for Plaintiff, John Trompeter

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JOHN TROMPETER, on behalf of himself and 

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., a Delaware 

corporation and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 12-0392-JST

CLASS ACTION

STIPULATION TO LIFT STAY AND 

DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 

AS TO PLAINTIFF’S INDIVIDUAL 

CLAIMS; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Judge: Hon. John Tigar

Complaint Filed: September 6, 2011

Case 3:12-cv-00392-JST Document 60 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 4
07462.0375/4063375.1 2

STIPULATION TO LIFT STAY AND DISMISS ACTION 

Case No. 12-0392-JST

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

Plaintiff John Trompeter (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Ally Financial, Inc. (“Ally” or 

“Defendant,” collectively with Plaintiff, the “Parties”) through their counsel of record stipulate as 

follows, and request that the stay in the above-referenced case be lifted, and that based on the 

Parties’ confidential settlement the action be dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiff’s individual 

claims and without prejudice as to the claims of the putative, uncertified class alleged by Plaintiff:

1. WHEREAS, on or about September 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed an action entitled John 

Trompeter v. Ally Financial Inc., No. 13-00164, in the Superior Court of California, County of San 

Francisco (the “Action”). On or about December 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended 

Complaint (“FAC”) in the Action. On or about January 25, 2012, Ally removed the Action to the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where it was docketed as No. 

12-0392. 

2. WHEREAS, by his FAC, Plaintiff brought claims against Ally for allegedly 

“secretly recording telephone calls with persons located in California without their consent.” (FAC 

¶ 1.) Plaintiff’s FAC brought claims for (1) statutory damages and injunctive relief under 

California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code § 637.2, based on alleged violations of Cal. 

Penal Code §§ 632 and 632.7; and (2) alleged violations of California Business & Professions 

Code § 17200 et seq. (FAC ¶¶ 29-41.)

3. WHEREAS, by his FAC, Plaintiff also sought to certify a class of “[a]ll consumers 

who received a telephone call, in which at least one party was in California, and that telephone call 

was recorded or monitored without prior warning or consent.” (FAC ¶ 25.)

4. WHEREAS, each Party denies all allegations, claims and defenses made by the 

other Party in the Action. 

5. WHEREAS, the Parties have now determined that their differences are resolvable 

via individual settlement. Based upon these facts, Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue his class 

claims and has reached a settlement of his individual claims with Defendant. 

6. WHEREAS, on October 31, 2012, the Honorable Claudia Wilken granted Ally’s 

unopposed motion to stay district Court proceedings pending Ally’s appeal from the Court’s Order 

denying Ally’s motion to compel arbitration, and stayed this case. (Dkt. No. 46.)

Case 3:12-cv-00392-JST Document 60 Filed 04/23/15 Page 2 of 4
07462.0375/4063375.1 3

STIPULATION TO LIFT STAY AND DISMISS ACTION 

Case No. 12-0392-JST

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

7. WHEREAS, in light of the Parties’ settlement, the Parties filed a joint motion to 

dismiss Ally’s appeal, and on April 21, 2015 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit issued an Order granting the joint motion, dismissing Ally’s appeal, and stating that a copy 

of the Order “shall serve as the mandate of this Court.” (Dkt. No. 57.)

8. WHEREAS, in light of their settlement and the dismissal of Ally’s appeal, the 

Parties stipulate that the Action be dismissed, as set forth below.

9. WHEREAS, rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the 

parties to stipulate to the dismissal of an action at any time. Rule 23(e) does not limit the right to 

stipulate to dismissal of this putative class action because it only applies to certified classes, and no 

class has been certified in this matter. 

10. WHEREAS, accordingly, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, Plaintiff and Defendant agree that Plaintiff’s complaint shall be dismissed in its 

entirety and with prejudice with respect to the claims by Plaintiff individually against Defendant, 

and without prejudice as to the claims by the putative, uncertified class alleged by Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: April 21, 2015 SEVERSON & WERSON

A Professional Corporation

By: /s/ Rebecca S. Saelao

Rebecca S. Saelao

Attorneys for Defendant

ALLY FINANCIAL INC.

DATED: April 21, 2015 KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD, LLP

By: /s/ Prescott Littlefield

Prescott Littlefield

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ECF CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filing attorney attests that she has obtained 

concurrence regarding the filing of this document from the signatories to the document. 

By: /s/ Rebecca S. Saelao

Rebecca S. Saelao

Case 3:12-cv-00392-JST Document 60 Filed 04/23/15 Page 3 of 4
07462.0375/4063375.1 4

STIPULATION TO LIFT STAY AND DISMISS ACTION 

Case No. 12-0392-JST

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

Before the Court is the Parties’ stipulation and request that the Court lift the stay and 

dismiss this Action in its entirety, with prejudice as to Plaintiff’s individual claims and without 

prejudice as to the claims by the putative, uncertified class alleged by Plaintiff. Having reviewed 

the Parties’ stipulation and the Order by the Ninth Circuit granting the parties’ joint motion to 

dismiss Ally’s appeal in light of the parties’ settlement, and good cause appearing therefor, the 

Court ORDERS as follows:

The stay of this action is lifted. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(a), Plaintiff’s complaint 

is HEREBY DISMISSED in its entirety and with prejudice with respect to Plaintiff’s individual 

claims against Defendant, and without prejudice as to the claims brought on behalf of the putative, 

uncertified class.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2015 _________________________________

Honorable Jon S. Tigar

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:12-cv-00392-JST Document 60 Filed 04/23/15 Page 4 of 4