Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Johnathon Peoples filed a class action complaint on March 19, 2025, in Kern County Superior Court against Western Refining Retail, LLC, Speedway LLC, and 5245 Western Refining Retail, LLC. Only Western Refining answered in state court. On April 25, 2025, Western Refining removed the case to the Eastern District of California. Speedway LLC answered on August 21, 2025. On September 4, 2025, Peoples voluntarily dismissed 5245 Western Refining Retail, LLC without prejudice.
On October 30, 2026, Peoples and the remaining defendants filed an amended joint stipulation of dismissal. It dismissed the action with prejudice as to Peoples' individual claims and without prejudice as to the class claims. The magistrate judge's order addresses a narrow question: because the case was pleaded as a class action, did the court have to approve the dismissal or require notice to putative class members before closing the case? The order does not describe the underlying claims or reach their merits.
The Court’s Holding
The court found that the stipulation satisfied Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and that Peoples was entitled, at least as to his individual claims, to dismiss without a court order. It acknowledged that court approval of a dismissal may be required once a class has been certified. It also noted that Rule 23(e) requires approval to settle, voluntarily dismiss, or compromise the claims of a certified class or a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement.
Here, no class had been certified and none was proposed for settlement. The court also reasoned that the dismissal would not affect putative class members' possible claims. On that basis, Rule 23(e) required neither court approval nor notice to the putative class. The court cited Titus v. BlueChip Financial, an unpublished Ninth Circuit decision observing that, without a certified class, the named plaintiff is the only plaintiff before the court. Titus in turn cited Employers-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust Fund v. Anchor Capital Advisors, 498 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2007).
Citing Commercial Space Management Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 1999), the court stated that the action would terminate by operation of law without further order. It directed the Clerk to close the case and adjust the docket to reflect dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The dismissal is with prejudice as to Peoples' individual claims and without prejudice as to the putative class claims.
Key Takeaways
- A stipulated dismissal that satisfies Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) takes effect without a court order, and the court here said the action terminated by operation of law.
- Rule 23(e) approval applies to a certified class or a class proposed to be certified for settlement, and neither existed in this case.
- The court found that the dismissal would not affect putative class members' possible claims, so it required no notice to them.
- The order directing the Clerk to close the case was administrative. It did not review the merits or any settlement terms.
- Dismissing the class claims without prejudice leaves open whether putative class members may bring their own claims, and the order does not decide that question.
Why It Matters
The order applies a familiar Ninth Circuit principle in a short district-court setting. Before certification, a named plaintiff and the defendants who have appeared may end the case by stipulation, and Rule 23(e) adds no judicial review. The court's reasoning rests on two points: there was no certified or settlement class, and putative members' possible claims were not affected. The order is unreported, and it relies on an unpublished Ninth Circuit decision, so it carries no precedential weight.
Practitioners should read its scope carefully. The order resolves only that approval and notice were unnecessary. It does not decide any limitations or tolling question for putative class members, evaluate any settlement, or say whether Peoples received anything for dismissing. The with-prejudice portion reaches only his individual claims. Because the court ruled on the stipulation as filed, a different record, such as a certified class or a proposed settlement class, could lead to a different result.