Diva Limousine, Ltd. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:18-cv-05546
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Diva Limousine v. Uber, Judge Chen requested publicity information before deciding whether to approve the parties’ voluntary dismissal of a putative class action.
The parties and the absent and putative class members whose interests could be affected by dismissal of the case, publicity about the case, or reliance on the lawsuit and related statute-of-limitations tolling.
What happened
Diva Limousine, Ltd. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. involved a proposed voluntary dismissal of a putative class action. Before approving the dismissal, the court sought more information about how widely the case had been publicized and what information had been shared with the public and potential class members.
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires court approval and notice before a class action is dismissed or settled. That protection applies even though the proposed class had not yet been certified, because absent class members could otherwise be affected.
Judge Chen ordered the parties to file the requested description by October 15, 2019. The order did not approve or deny the voluntary dismissal; it requested information first.
The detailed version
- Diva Limousine, Ltd. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. · No. 3:18-cv-05546
- Edward Chen
- Oct. 7, 2019
Background
The parties filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in a putative class action. A putative class action is a case brought on behalf of a proposed group of people whose claims have not yet been formally certified as a class.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires court approval before a class action may be dismissed or compromised, and requires notice to class members in a manner directed by the court. The purpose is to protect people who are absent from the litigation. The court explained that this responsibility applies even though the proposed class had not been certified.
The court also sought to protect absent plaintiffs from relying on the lawsuit and from possible effects involving tolling of the statute of limitations, which can affect the time available to bring a claim. To evaluate those concerns, the court requested information about the scope of publicity surrounding the case and the nature of information shared with the public and putative class members.
Order
The court ordered the parties to file that description by October 15, 2019. The order requested information before the court would approve the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. It did not state that the dismissal was approved or denied, and it did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.