Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 8, 2023

Sarmento v. F&P, Inc -Ovation Payroll, LLC

Judge
William Alsup
Docket
3:20-cv-07922
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureBankruptcy
In one sentence

In Sarmento v. Buffets, Judge Alsup dismissed two plaintiffs, left Silva’s status pending, and kept the action stayed.

Who this affects

Armando Sarmento and Mercedes Tejada-Urena were dismissed from the action. Joshua Silva remained affected by the pending effort to contact him, and the action otherwise remained stayed.

What happened

In Sarmento v. Buffets, LLC, plaintiffs’ lawyer said he still could not reach plaintiff Joshua Silva. Armando Sarmento and Mercedes Tejada-Urena had filed agreements with the parties seeking their dismissal.

The court confirmed that Sarmento and Tejada-Urena were dismissed. It did not decide what would happen to Silva; the court asked counsel to try contacting him again and await an update. The action otherwise remains stayed.

Judge William Alsup relied on federal rules allowing dismissal of fewer than all plaintiffs and allowing a court to drop a party. The court also noted a report stating that the dismissal did not violate an automatic bankruptcy stay.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Sarmento v. F&P, Inc -Ovation Payroll, LLC · No. 3:20-cv-07922
Judge
William Alsup
Date
June 8, 2023

Background

At a June 7, 2023 hearing on plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw, counsel explained that he still had been unable to reach plaintiff Joshua Silva. Plaintiffs Armando Sarmento and Mercedes Tejada-Urena had filed stipulations signed by all parties seeking their dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). Defendants’ counsel also filed a report under penalty of perjury stating that the dismissal did not violate an automatic stay connected to the corresponding bankruptcy proceedings.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that Rule 41, which addresses voluntary dismissal, can permit dismissal of fewer than all plaintiffs who seek to leave an action. The court also noted that Rule 21 allows a court, on motion or on its own, to add or drop a party at any time on just terms.

Ruling

The court confirmed that Sarmento and Tejada-Urena were dismissed. As to Silva, the court said it would determine how to proceed after receiving an update about further efforts to contact him. The action otherwise remains stayed. The order was entered by Judge William Alsup on June 8, 2023.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.