1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESUS ALVARADO, Case No. 22-cv-0050-BAS-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 20)

14 EXPERIAN INFORMATION

SOLUTIONS, INC., 15 Defendant. 16

17

18 Plaintiff commenced this putative class action against Defendants LexisNexis Risk 19 Data Management, Inc. (“Lexis”) and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) 20 on January 13, 2022. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On March 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of 21 voluntary dismissal without prejudice against LexisNexis, thereby terminating that 22 Defendant from this action. On April 7, 2022, the parties jointly moved pursuant to Federal 23 Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss claims against the lone 24 remaining Defendant, Experian, and, thus, the action in its entirety. (Joint Mot., ECF No. 25 20.) 26 Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss its 27 action by (1) filing a notice of voluntary dismissal before a defendant has filed an answer 28 or moved for summary judgment, or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all 1 || parties who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); see also Wilson v. City of San 2 || Jose,

(9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal is effective upon the filing of a 3 ||compliant notice or stipulation, as described in Rule 41(a)(1)(A), and no court order is 4 ||required. Stone v. Woodford, No. CIV-F-05-845 AWI-DLB,

(E.D. Cal. 5 16, 2007). A dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. 6 ||Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). Crucially, “prior to certification” a named plaintiff may 7 || dismiss claims on behalf of a putative class under Rule 41(a)(1) because “Rule 23(e) does 8 provide the district court with any supervisory authority over such dismissals, nor does 9 || it require notice to the absent class members.” Ripley v. Bridgestone Retail Ops., LLC., 10 C09-1482 RSM,

, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 2, 2010) (citing 11 ||Moore’s Federal Practice 3d, § 23.64[2][a] (2007)); see also Richey v. GetWellNetwork, 12 || Inc., No. 20-cv-2205-BEN-BLM,

, at *3 (“Because no class has been 13 |/certified in this case, Rule 23 does not mandate either court approval of the instant 14 || settlement or notice to putative class members” (quoting Allred v. Chicago Title Co., No. 15 || 19CV2129-LAB (AHG),

, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020))). 16 Although Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i1) by its text permits voluntary dismissal by filing a 17 |}compliant stipulation, the local civil rules of this district require that such a stipulation must 18 ||be filed as a joint motion.! 19 Having considered the parties’ request, the Court construes the parties’ stipulation 20 a Joint Motion to dismiss this action and GRANTS that Joint Motion. (ECF No. 20.) 21 || Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs individual claims against 22 ||Experian and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the claims of the putative class. 23 || The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: April 7, 2022 ( itl A (pha □ 26 United States District Judge 27 28 ' See Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, United States District Court for the Southern District of California.