Sarmento v. F&P, Inc -Ovation Payroll, LLC

[5] 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [7] NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [9] 10 ARMANDO SARMENTO, MERCEDES TEJADA-URENA, and JOSHUA SILVA, 11 No. C 20–07922 WHA Plaintiffs, [12] v. 13 ORDER RE DISMISSAL OF BUFFETS, LLC, HOMETOWN BUFFETS, PLAINTIFFS 14 LLC, and VITANOVA BRANDS, 15 Defendants. [16] 17 At the hearing on plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw on June 7, 2023, from which 18 defendants were excused at their request, plaintiffs’ counsel explained that he was still unable 19 to reach plaintiff Joshua Silva. Stipulations signed by all parties to dismiss plaintiffs Armando 20 Sarmento and Mercedes Tejada-Urena pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A) have been filed (Dkt. 21 Nos. 57, 65). While Rule 41 contemplates dismissal of “actions,” our court of appeals has 22 interpreted it to permit dismissal of “fewer than all the plaintiffs who seek to withdraw from 23 the action.” Cf. Pedrina v. Han Kuk Chun, 987 F.2d 608 , 609 n.2 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting 5 24 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 41.06-1, at 41-86 to 41-88 (2d ed. 25 1992)). And, in any event, Rule 21 states that “[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any 26 time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” Furthermore, defendants’ counsel has filed a report 27 under penalty of perjury explaining that the trustee in the corresponding bankruptcy 1 dismissal does not violate any automatic stay in place due to those proceedings (Dkt. No. 63). 2 This order thus confirms that plaintiffs Sarmento and Tejada-Urena are dismissed. 3 As to plaintiff Silva, the Court requested at the hearing that plaintiffs’ counsel make a 4 further attempt to contact his client. The Court shall determine how to proceed as to plaintiff 5 Silva after receiving an update on those efforts. Otherwise, this action remains stayed. [6] 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. [8] 9 Dated: June 8, 2023. [10] 11 L ~ / beep WILLIAM ALSUP 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE [16] = 17 Z 18