Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04163/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04163-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jimmy L. Castro
Plaintiff
North Star Capital Acquisition LLC
Defendant
Gregory Nowicki
Defendant
Zenith Acquisition Corp.
Defendant

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 MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE CASTRO V. ZENITH, et al.

 CASE NO. C 06-04163 SI

1 

Irving L. Berg (SBN 36273)

THE BERG LAW GROUP

145 Town Center, PMB 493 

Corte Madera, California 94925

(415) 924-0742

(415) 891-8208 (Facsimile)

irvberg@comcast.net (e-mail)

ATTORNEY for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JIMMY L. CASTRO, individually and on

behalf of others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZENITH ACQUISITION CORP.; NORTH

STAR CAPITAL ACQUISITION LLC; and

GREGORY NOWICKI, an individual

 Defendants.

 /

Case No.: C 06-04163 SI

MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE AS TO NAMED PLAINTIFF 

NO HEARING REQUIRED 

I. PROCEDURAL FACTS

1. On or about July 5, 2006, Plaintiff JIMMY L. CASTRO (“Plaintiff”) commenced

this action against Defendant, ZENITH ACQUISITION CORP AND NORTH STAR CAPITAL

ACQUISITION LLC.

2. On or about August 23, 2006, Defendants filed their Answer.

3. Plaintiff has not yet moved for class certification, this case has not received any

publicity, and counsel is not aware of any putative class members who have relied upon this

action.

4. The parties have settled this case on an individual basis, and have agreed to

Case 3:06-cv-04163-SI Document 15 Filed 01/03/2007 Page 1 of 4
 Case 3:06-cv-04163-SI Document 16 Filed 01/09/07 Page 1 of 4
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 MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE CASTRO V. ZENITH, et al.

 CASE NO. C 06-04163 SI

2 

stipulate to dismissal of this case with prejudice, without costs, and not affecting the rights of any

putative class members other than Plaintiff (Docs #12, 13, 14).

5. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff asks that the court dismiss this action with

prejudice as to Plaintiff Jimmy L. Castro and without costs. The claims of the putative class

members shall not be affected, except for Plaintiff.

II. STATEMENT OF QUESTION PRESENTED

Should Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to dismiss the class allegations from his complaint 

be granted pursuant to Rule 23(e)?

This question should be answered in the affirmative 

III. ARGUMENT

A. COURT’S DISCRETION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) provides that:

 A class shall not be dismissed or compromised without the

 approval of the court, and notice of the proposed dismissal or 

 compromise shall be given to all members of the class in a manner

 as the court directs

The district court’s decision to approve or reject a class settlement is committed to the sound

discretion of the trial judge because the judge is exposed to the litigants, and their strategies, 

positions and proof. Glidden v. Chromalloy American Corp., 808 F.2d 62, 627 (7th Cir. 1986). 

Also see: Mego Financial Corp. Securities Litigation, In re 213, F.3d 454, 458 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Pursuant to Rule 23(e), Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to dismiss the class action 

allegations as set forth in the Complaint without notice to the class. The Court must exercise 

discretion before the dismissal of class claims and determination of the appropriate Rule 23(e) 

procedures. For example, in Diaz v. Trust the Pacific Islands, 876 F.2d 1401, (9th Cir. 1989), the 

Ninth Circuit noted 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; (3) any settlement or concession of class interests made

Case 3:06-cv-04163-SI Document 15 Filed 01/03/2007 Page 2 of 4
 Case 3:06-cv-04163-SI Document 16 Filed 01/09/07 Page 2 of 4
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 MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE CASTRO V. ZENITH, et al.

 CASE NO. C 06-04163 SI

3 

by the class representative or counsel in order to further their own

interests. 

“Notice to the class of pre-certification dismissal is not, however, required in all circumstances.” 

Id. Also see: 2 Newberg on Class Actions § 8.18 and § 1170. Applying the Diaz factors to the 

facts here, it is plain that there is no prejudice to the potential class members and that notice to 

the class members is not required. 

B. CLASS MEMBERS RELIANCE

It is doubtful that any purported class member has relief on filing of this action to protect 

his or her claims. It is highly unlikely that the class members were aware of the present action.

There has been no publicity regarding this matter or plaintiff’s claims against Defendants. Thus, 

potential class members did not rely on the filing of the present action to assert or protect their

claims. No putative class members have filed any other action, or contacted any of the parties, or 

sought to intervene. 

C. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

There is no claim that there is lack of adequate time for putative class members to file 

other actions, because of a rapidly approaching Statute of Limitations. No other lawsuits have 

been filed. No putative class members have contacted either Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel, 

Defendants, or Defendant’s counsel regarding this litigation. 

The Supreme Court held that in American Pine and Construction v. Utah, 414, U.S. 538. 

38 L.Ed. 2d 713, 94 S.Ct. 756 (1974), that the filing of a class tolls the Statute of Limitations on 

all individual claims covered by the class action. With the filing of the present lawsuit, claims of 

the potential class members were tolled. Thus, the Statute of Limitations is not “rapidly 

approaching” and the potential class members are not prejudiced thereby.

D. NO CONCESSION OF ANY CLASS INTERESTS

Neither concession nor settlement of class claims is being made and this settlement will

not affect any other pending cases or any right to bring an action by any putative class member.

Case 3:06-cv-04163-SI Document 15 Filed 01/03/2007 Page 3 of 4
 Case 3:06-cv-04163-SI Document 16 Filed 01/09/07 Page 3 of 4
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 MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE CASTRO V. ZENITH, et al.

 CASE NO. C 06-04163 SI

4 

The class claims against the Defendants are being dropped because of the risk and uncertainty of

litigation. The proposed settlement is only with regard to Mr. Castro’s claim against the

Defendants. No rights or claims of the potential class members are surrendered or otherwise

compromised. Thus, the proposed settlement between Mr. Castro and the Defendants will not

prejudice the potential class members.

IV. CONCLUSION

As discussed above, the potential class will not be prejudiced by dismissal of the class

claims against the Defendants. Therefore, Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Dismissal with

Prejudice as to Named Plaintiff. 

Dated: January 3, 2007 /s/ 

Irving L. Berg

THE BERG LAW GROUP

145 Town Center, PMB 493

Corte Madera, CA 94925

(415) 924-0742

(415) 891-8208 (Facsimile)

irvberg@comcast.net (e-mail)

 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

 [PROPOSED] ORDER 

 The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Dismissal; Good cause

appearing it is so Ordered.

DATED: 

 United States District Court Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04163-SI Document 15 Filed 01/03/2007 Page 4 of 4
 Case 3:06-cv-04163-SI Document 16 Filed 01/09/07 Page 4 of 4