Baranco v. Ford Motor Company

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] 7 DAVID BARANCO, et al., Case No. 17-cv-03580-EMC 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER REQUESTING 9 v. INFORMATION FROM THE PARTIES 10 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Docket No. 151 11 Defendant. [12] 13 Before the Court will approve the parties’ Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal with 14 Prejudice, Docket No. 151, the Court requests information from the parties about the scope and 15 nature of the publicity associated with this putative class action. As Federal Rule of Civil 16 Procedure 23(e) compels, “A class action shall not be dismissed or compromised without the 17 approval of the court, and notice of the proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given to all 18 members of the class in such manner as the court directs.” This requirement “is to protect the 19 interests of absent plaintiffs before permitting dismissal.” Schultzen v. Woodbury Cent. Cmty. 20 Sch. Dist., 217 F.R.D. 469, 470 (N.D. Iowa 2003). Although “the class has not been certified . . . 21 ‘[t]his requirement [to act as the guardian of the rights of class members still] applies.’” Id. (citing 22 Diaz v. Trust Territory of Pacific Islands, 876 F.2d 1401 , 1407 (9th Cir.1989)). Thus, in order to 23 ensure that the interests of the absent plaintiffs are appropriately safeguarded, and to safeguard 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 against any misplaced reliance on this suit and any consequential tolling of the statute of 2 || limitations, the parties shall file by September 25, 2019, a description of the scope of publicity and 3 nature of the information shared with the public and putative class members about this case. [4] 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. [6] 7 Dated: September 13, 2019 ° : eho ED . CHEN 10 United States District Judge [13] © [16] = 17 Z 18