Beverly Allen, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Protective Life Insurance Company, et al.

Allen · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · December 11, 2025 · No. 1:20-cv-00530-JLT-CDB

Summary

The court directed the clerk to close a putative class action after the parties filed a stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The individual claims were dismissed with prejudice, while the putative class claims were dismissed without prejudice; the court concluded that Rule 23(e) did not require approval or notice because no class had been certified.

Holdings

  1. Rule 23(e) did not require court approval of the stipulated dismissal or notice to putative class members because no class had been certified and no class had been proposed for certification for settlement purposes.
  2. The stipulated dismissal satisfied Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), operated without further court order, and required the clerk to close the case, with individual claims dismissed with prejudice and putative class claims dismissed without prejudice.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether court approval or notice to putative class members was required before dismissal of the individual and putative class claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e) and 41.
  2. Whether the clerk should close the case pursuant to the parties' stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (3)

  • Titus v. BlueChip Financial, 786 Fed. App'x. 694, 695 (9th Cir. 2019)(followed)
  • Emp'rs-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Tr. Fund v. Anchor Capital Advisors, 498 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Comm. Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 1999)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…