From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCormack v. Sterling Jewelers Inc.

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Feb 14, 2023
3:22-cv-00525-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2023)

Opinion

3:22-cv-00525-AJB-DDL

02-14-2023

AMY MCCORMACK et al. Plaintiffs, v. STERLING JEWELERS, INC. et al. Defendants.


CLASS ACTION

ORDER DISMISSING ENTIRE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. PROC. 41(A)(1)(A)(II)

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia, United States District Judge.

The parties have filed a stipulation to dismiss this action without prejudice. All parties have agreed to the dismissal.

In light of the stipulation, the case has been dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); see also Ripley v. Bridgestone Retail Ops., LLC., No. C09-1482 RSM, 2010 WL 11684294, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 2, 2010) (citing Moore's Federal Practice 3d, § 23.64[2][a] (2007)); see also Richey v. GetWellNetwork, Inc., No. 20-cv-2205-BEN-BLM, 2021 WL 424281, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2021) (“Because no class has been certified in this case, Rule 23 does not mandate either court approval of the instant settlement or notice to putative class members” [quoting Allred v. Chicago Title Co., No. 19CV2129-LAB (AHG), 2020 WL 5847550, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020]).

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

McCormack v. Sterling Jewelers Inc.

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Feb 14, 2023
3:22-cv-00525-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2023)
Case details for

McCormack v. Sterling Jewelers Inc.

Case Details

Full title:AMY MCCORMACK et al. Plaintiffs, v. STERLING JEWELERS, INC. et al…

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Feb 14, 2023

Citations

3:22-cv-00525-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2023)