Diva Limousine, Ltd. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] 7 DIVA LIMOUSINE, LTD., Case No. 18-cv-05546-EMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUESTING 9 v. INFORMATION FROM THE PARTIES 10 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Docket No. 139 11 Defendants. [13] 14 Before the Court will approve the parties’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Docket No. 139, 15 the Court requests information from the parties about the scope and nature of the publicity 16 associated with this putative class action. As Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) compels: “A 17 class action shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of 18 the proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as 19 the court directs.” This requirement “is to protect the interests of absent plaintiffs before 20 permitting dismissal.” Schultzen v. Woodbury Cent. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 217 F.R.D. 469, 470 (N.D. 21 Iowa 2003 ). Although “the class has not been certified . . . ‘[t]his requirement [to act as the 22 guardian of the rights of class members still] applies.’” Id. (citing Diaz v. Trust Territory of 23 Pacific Islands, 876 F.2d 1401 , 1407 (9th Cir. 1989)). Thus, in order to ensure that the interests of 24 the absent plaintiffs are appropriately safeguarded, and to safeguard against any misplaced 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 reliance on this suit and any consequential tolling of the statute of limitations, the parties shall file 2 || by October 15, 2019, a description of the scope of publicity and nature of the information shared 3 || with the public and putative class members about this case. [4] 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. [6] 7 Dated: October 7, 2019 8 LL 9 ir ED M.C 10 United States District Judge [13] © [16] = 17 Z 18