Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01347/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01347-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
GEO Secure Services, LLC
Defendant
Chris Mazzei
Plaintiff
The GEO Group, Inc.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRIS MAZZEI, on behalf of himself and all 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01347-JLT-CDB

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE 

COURT TO CLOSE CASE PURSUANT

TO RULE 41(a)(1) OF THE FEDERAL 

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

(Doc. 48)

ORDER DISCHARGING SANCTIONS

(Doc. 47)

Background

On September 8, 2022, Plaintiff Chris Mazzei (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the 

filing of a complaint in state court, asserting claims on behalf of himself and a putative class 

against Defendant Geo Secure Services, LLC, and The Geo Group, Inc. (Doc. 1-2). On October 

20, 2022, Defendants removed the action to this Court. (Doc. 1). Following the parties’ filing of 

a notice of settlement, the Court then ordered the parties to file dispositional documents by 

November 8, 2024. (Docs. 41, 42). The parties filed a stipulated request to continue that

deadline on November 6, 2024 (Doc. 43), which was denied by the Court on November 7, 2024; 

instead, the parties were provided seven additional days within which to comply with the Court’s 

Case 1:22-cv-01347-JLT-CDB Document 49 Filed 12/03/24 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

order to file dispositional documents. (Doc. 44). On November 14, 2024, instead of timely filing 

dispositional documents, the parties filed a second stipulated request to extend the deadline. 

(Doc. 46). In response to the failure of the parties to comply with the Court’s orders, the 

undersigned issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the action and ordered counsel for 

Defendants to pay sanctions of $500. Payment of sanctions was stayed until December 2, 2024, 

to permit the parties to file the necessary dispositional documents. (Doc. 47).

Analysis

Pending before the Court is the parties’ jointly executed stipulated dismissal of this action 

with prejudice as to Plaintiff’s individual claims and without prejudice as to the putative class 

claims. Additionally, the parties request that the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the 

settlement agreement. (Doc. 48). 

The parties’ stipulated dismissal comports with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(a)(1)(i) and Plaintiff is entitled to dismiss his individual claims (at least) without court order. 

In a class action, however, court approval of dismissal may be required under Rule 41(a)(2) if the 

class has been certified. Specifically, Rule 23(e) provides that any claims arising out of either a 

(1) “certified class” or (2) “class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement ... may be 

settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court's approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

23(e) (emphasis added). 

In this case, the parties seek to dismiss the putative class claims under Rule 41(a)(1) 

without prejudice. (Doc. 48). No class has been certified, Plaintiff has not sought certification, 

nor has certification been proposed for purposes of settlement. Because no class has been 

certified in this case, and because any dismissal would not affect putative class members’ claims, 

Rule 23(e) does not mandate either Court approval of the parties’ settlement or notice to putative 

class members. See Titus v. BlueChip Financial, 786 Fed. Appx. 694, 695 (9th Cir. 2019) 

(“Because no class has been certified, Titus is the only plaintiff before the court; once she has 

dismissed her claims with prejudice, no other plaintiff can step into her shoes to continue this 

legal action”) (unpublished) (citing Emp’rs-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Tr. Fund v. 

Anchor Capital Advisors, 498 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2007)).

Case 1:22-cv-01347-JLT-CDB Document 49 Filed 12/03/24 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

In light of the Plaintiff’s filing, the Court finds that Rule 23(e) does not require the Court’s

approval of the dismissal. This action shall be terminated by operation of law without further 

order of the Court. Comm. Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077-78 

(9th Cir. 1999). 

Additionally, on the parties’ stipulated request (Doc. 48), the Court will retain jurisdiction 

for the limited purpose of overseeing the parties’ performance under their settlement agreement 

for 120 days from the date of issuance of this order. The Court’s show cause order requiring 

counsel for Defendants to pay sanctions of $500 (Doc. 47) will be discharged without imposition 

of sanctions.

Conclusion and Order

In light of the parties’ stipulated dismissal (Doc. 48), this action is terminated by operation 

of law without further order of the Court.

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the case and adjust the docket to reflect

stipulated dismissal with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i), as to Plaintiff’s individual claims 

and without prejudice as to the putative class claims. The Court will retain jurisdiction for the 

limited purpose of overseeing the parties’ performance under their settlement agreement for 1200 

days from the date of issuance of this order.

Further, in light of the parties’ prompt filing, the order of the Court requiring counsel for 

Defendants to pay sanctions in the amount of $500 (Doc. 47) is DISCHARGED without 

imposition of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01347-JLT-CDB Document 49 Filed 12/03/24 Page 3 of 3