Dominguez v. Sonesta International Hotels Corporation
- Joseph Spero
- 3:22-cv-03027
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Dominguez v. Sonesta, Judge Spero granted dismissal of individual, PAGA, and class claims, with some dismissed with prejudice and others without prejudice.
The order affects Bertha Dominguez, Sonesta International Hotels Corporation, and absent potential class members. Dominguez’s individual claims and PAGA cause of action were dismissed with prejudice; the other class claims were dismissed without prejudice. The court found that absent class members would not be prejudiced, and ordered each side to bear its own fees and costs except as provided in the parties’ agreement.
What happened
Bertha Dominguez v. Sonesta International Hotels Corporation involved a stipulation to dismiss Dominguez’s individual claims, her claims under the Private Attorneys General Act, and other class claims.
The court reviewed the parties’ information under the rule governing dismissal of class actions and found that the dismissal would not prejudice absent potential class members. It dismissed Dominguez’s individual claims and PAGA cause of action with prejudice, and dismissed the other class claims without prejudice.
Judge Spero granted the stipulation and ordered each side to bear its own fees and costs, except as provided in the parties’ agreement.
The detailed version
- Dominguez v. Sonesta International Hotels Corporation · No. 3:22-cv-03027
- Joseph Spero
- Mar. 6, 2026
Background
Bertha Dominguez submitted a stipulation asking the court to dismiss her individual claims, her claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), and other class claims in the operative First Amended Complaint. The parties also submitted a statement addressing the factors from a prior related proceeding that require limited court review when class claims are dismissed.
Court’s Review
Under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reviewed whether dismissing the case could prejudice absent potential class members. The court found that the dismissal satisfied Rule 23(e) and the factors identified in the cited precedent, and that it would not prejudice absent class members.
Ruling
The court granted the stipulation for dismissal and ordered:
- Dominguez’s individual claims dismissed with prejudice as to her. - Her PAGA cause of action dismissed with prejudice. - The other class claims dismissed without prejudice. - Each side to bear its own fees and costs, except as provided in the parties’ agreement.
The opinion identifies the ruling as an order granting the stipulation for dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.