Pacha Soap Co. v. Good Gustafson Aumais LLP
- Joseph Spero
- 3:26-cv-02520
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Keene v. Pacha Soap Co., Judge Spero approved the parties' joint request to dismiss the case, ending the named plaintiff's claims permanently while preserving potential class members' rights to sue later.
Caley Keene, the named plaintiff, whose individual claims are permanently ended. Potential class members — people who may have had similar claims against Pacha Soap Co. under California consumer protection laws — are not bound by this dismissal and retain the right to file their own lawsuits.
What happened
In Keene v. Pacha Soap Co. (Case No. 3:26-cv-02520-JCS, N.D. Cal.), plaintiff Caley Keene sued Pacha Soap Co. on behalf of herself and a proposed class of similarly situated people, asserting claims under California consumer protection laws and for unjust enrichment. The lawsuit was filed on March 23, 2026, and the parties agreed to dismiss it less than five months later, before any class was certified, any class-related discovery was conducted, or any notice was sent to potential class members.
The parties jointly asked the court to dismiss the case under a federal rule (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)) that allows dismissal by agreement of all parties. They represented that no potential class members had relied on the lawsuit being filed, that no significant media attention had reached those members, and that the relevant statutes of limitations had been paused during the case's pendency — meaning potential class members still have time to bring their own claims later.
Judge Joseph C. Spero granted the joint request on August 19, 2026. The named plaintiff Caley Keene's individual claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning she cannot bring those same claims again. The potential class members' claims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning those individuals retain the right to pursue their own lawsuits in the future. Each side was ordered to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs, and the court found that no notice to potential class members was required given the early stage of the proceedings.
The detailed version
- Pacha Soap Co. v. Good Gustafson Aumais LLP · No. 3:26-cv-02520
- Joseph Spero
- Aug. 19, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Caley Keene filed this putative class action — a lawsuit brought on behalf of herself and all others allegedly similarly situated — against Pacha Soap Co. on March 23, 2026, in the Northern District of California. The complaint asserted claims under California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 and 17500 (the Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, each carrying a four-year statute of limitations), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq. (three-year limitations period), and a claim for unjust enrichment (subject to a three- or four-year limitations period per a footnote in the stipulation). The opinion does not describe the underlying factual allegations in detail.
Procedural Posture
No motion for class certification had been filed. No class had been certified. No class-related discovery had been conducted, and no notice of any kind had been issued to putative (proposed) class members. Less than five months after filing, both parties — represented by counsel throughout — jointly stipulated to dismiss the entire action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which permits dismissal by signed stipulation of all parties.
Terms of the Stipulation
The parties' joint stipulation contained several representations directed at establishing that dismissal would not harm absent putative class members:
- Reliance: The parties were unaware of any media coverage beyond routine legal industry reporting. Plaintiff's counsel had received no communications from any putative class member. There was no basis to conclude any absent class member had relied on the filing of the action. - Statute of Limitations Tolling: Under the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), statutes of limitations are paused (tolled) for putative class members while a class action is pending. Because the action had been pending less than five months, the parties represented that class members face no rapidly approaching limitations deadline and can still bring individual claims. - No Concession of Class Interests: The dismissal without prejudice of the putative class claims does not release, compromise, or adjudicate those claims. Absent putative class members retain all rights to pursue their own claims. - No Notice Required: Given the above, the parties jointly represented that notice to putative class members was unnecessary.
Disposition
Judge Spero adopted the proposed order in full on August 19, 2026:
- Caley Keene's individual claims: dismissed with prejudice (she is barred from refiling those claims). - The putative class members' claims: dismissed without prejudice (those individuals retain the right to bring their own lawsuits). - Each party is to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. - The court expressly found that notice to putative class members is not necessary, citing the early stage of proceedings, the absence of any reliance by putative class members, and the without-prejudice nature of the class claim dismissal. - The Clerk was directed to close the file.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.