1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, Case No. 18-cv-07230-KAW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING 9 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

10 STRAIGHT LINE SOURCE INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 17 11 Defendants.

12 13 On September 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of the individual claims with 14 prejudice, and class claims without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 17.) Plaintiff, however, did not address 15 the Diaz factors, as required by the Court’s July 17, 2019 order. (Dkt. No. 16 at 1.) 16 “Under Rule 23(e), the court must approve any dismissal or compromise of a class action.” 17 Diaz v. Tr. Territory of Pac. Islands,

, 1408 (9th Cir. 1989). “Courts in this district 18 have expressed some uncertainty about whether Rule 23(e) still applies to pre-certification 19 settlement proposals in the wake of the 2003 amendments to the rule but have generally assumed 20 that it does.” Lyons v. Bank of Am., N.A., Case No. 11-cv-1232-CW,

, at *1 21 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012); see also Campanelli v. Image First Healthcare Laundry Specialists, 22 Inc., Case No. 15-cv-4456-PJH,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2019); Gonzalez v. 23 Fallanghina, LLC, Case No. 16-cv-1832-MEJ,

, at *12 (N.D. Cal. 24 Apr. 17, 2007). In Diaz, the Ninth Circuit listed the factors the district court must inquire into to 25 determine whether there is prejudice to the class members from dismissal of the class claims. 26 Absent such information, dismissal of the class claims is not appropriate. 27 /// 1 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to, by September 24, 2019, file a supplemental 2 || brief addressing the Diaz factors. The Court will not dismiss the class claims otherwise. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: September 17, 2019 . 5 can ide We 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28