Munoz v. Peet’s Coffee
- Edward Chen
- 3:26-cv-00499
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Munoz v. Peet's Coffee, Judge Chen ordered supplemental briefing before approving the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of putative class claims.
Plaintiffs in putative class actions who seek to voluntarily dismiss their claims before the class is certified, and defendants in such cases, as courts in the Northern District of California will require supplemental briefing addressing the Diaz factors before approving such dismissals.
What happened
In Munoz v. Peet's Coffee, Inc. (Case No. 26-cv-00499-EMC), plaintiff Sal Munoz filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, seeking to dismiss his individual claims with prejudice and the claims of the putative class without prejudice. Because the case involved a proposed class action that had not yet been certified, the court determined that it needed to review the dismissal before approving it.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires a court to review and approve proposed dismissals or settlements of class claims. The Ninth Circuit has held that this rule applies even before a class is officially certified, though in a lighter form than when a class has already been certified. Courts in the Northern District of California continue to apply the legal standards set out in a case called Diaz v. Trust Territory of Pacific Islands when evaluating pre-certification dismissals.
Judge Edward M. Chen ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing addressing the Diaz factors within one week. The briefing must describe any publicity the case received, and address whether any potential class members contacted counsel. The court strongly preferred that the parties submit a single joint brief, though it allowed them to note any disagreements and state their respective positions.
The detailed version
- Munoz v. Peet’s Coffee · No. 3:26-cv-00499
- Edward Chen
- Aug. 26, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Sal Munoz filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in this putative class action against Peet's Coffee, Inc. The notice sought to dismiss his individual claims with prejudice (meaning those claims cannot be refiled) and to dismiss the claims of the putative class — the group of potential class members whose claims had not yet been formally certified by the court — without prejudice (meaning those claims could potentially be refiled).
Legal Framework
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires court review and approval of any proposed voluntary dismissal, settlement, or compromise of a certified class's claims. The Ninth Circuit, in Diaz v. Trust Territory of Pacific Islands, 876 F.2d 1401, 1408 (9th Cir. 1989), extended Rule 23(e)'s oversight requirement to pre-certification dismissals and compromises, though in a substantially lighter form that does not require the substantive oversight applied to settlements that would bind the class.
The court acknowledged some uncertainty in the district about whether Diaz remains controlling after the 2003 amendments to Rule 23(e), but noted that courts in the Northern District of California continue to follow Diaz for pre-certification dismissals. The court cited two recent examples: Ridzuan v. Container Store, Inc., No. 26-cv-00619-EMC (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2026), and Esparza v. Orvis Co., No. 5:25-cv-00630-SSS-SHKx (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025).
The Court's Order
Judge Chen ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing and/or evidence addressing the Diaz factors. The required briefing must include: - A description of all publicity concerning the case and its filing; - An address of whether any putative class members have communicated with counsel.
The court strongly preferred a joint supplemental brief, but permitted the parties to separately state their positions on any factor where they disagree. The supplemental brief was ordered to be filed within one week of the date of the order (August 26, 2026).
Status
This order does not grant or deny the voluntary dismissal; it requires additional information before the court can evaluate whether to approve the proposed dismissal of the putative class claims under the Diaz framework. No ruling on the merits of the underlying claims has been issued.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.