Chu v. Eddie Bauer LLC
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:19-cv-04182
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Chu v. Eddie Bauer LLC, Judge Westmore ordered Kyo Hak Chu to brief the Diaz factors before considering dismissal of his individual and class claims.
Kyo Hak Chu and the putative class members whose claims he sought to dismiss.
What happened
In Chu v. Eddie Bauer LLC, Kyo Hak Chu asked to dismiss his individual claim with prejudice and the proposed class claims without prejudice. He argued that a 2003 amendment to the class-action rule eliminated the need to address the Diaz factors.
The court explained that courts in the Northern District of California have continued requiring information about those factors before dismissing proposed class claims, including when dismissal is without prejudice. That review helps protect people in the proposed class from settlements or dismissals that could harm them without their knowledge.
Judge Kandis Westmore ordered Kyo Hak Chu to file a supplemental brief addressing the Diaz factors by February 21, 2020. The order did not decide whether the claims would be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Chu v. Eddie Bauer LLC · No. 4:19-cv-04182
- Kandis Westmore
- Feb. 10, 2020
Background
Kyo Hak Chu filed an amended notice of dismissal seeking to dismiss his individual claim with prejudice and the class claims without prejudice. The court had previously required him to address the factors identified in Diaz if he wanted to dismiss the class claims. Instead, Chu argued that he did not need to address those factors because Rule 23(e), the federal class-action rule, had been amended.
Court’s Analysis
The court recognized uncertainty about whether Rule 23(e) continues to apply to proposed class settlements or dismissals before a class is certified. But it noted that courts in the Northern District of California have generally continued to require briefing on the Diaz factors. Those courts reasoned that review is needed to protect putative class members from collusive agreements, from having their interests sacrificed when a named plaintiff resolves only his individual claims, and from potential harm caused by dismissal without notice.
Order
The court ordered Chu to file a supplemental brief addressing the Diaz factors by February 21, 2020. The court stated that little information was needed to address those factors. This order required additional briefing; it did not grant or deny the requested dismissal.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court addressed the information needed before ruling on the proposed dismissal and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.