1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6

KEN HAKOMORI,

7 Case No. 24-cv-04481-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 APPROVAL OF STIPULATED STANLEY BLACK & DECKER, INC, et DISMISSAL 10 al., Re: Dkt. No. 67 11 Defendants.

12 13 The parties have submitted a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Individual Claims 14 With Prejudice and Class Claims Without Prejudice as to The Putative Class. Dkt. no. 67. While 15 individual claims may be dismissed without Court action where all parties who have appeared 16 enter into a stipulation of dismissal, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the dismissal of class claims 17 requires Court approval under Fed.R.Civ. P. 23(e). The parties recognize this requirement in the 18 supporting declaration of P. J. Van Ert, dkt. no. 67-1 (“Van Ert Decl.”) at paragraph 9, which the 19 Court construes as a motion for approval of the stipulated dismissal of the class claims in this case. 20 That motion is GRANTED.1 21 Rule 23(e) provides that “[t]he claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class--or a class 22 proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement--may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or 23 compromised only with the court’s approval.” The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 23(e) applies 24 even where, as here, no class has been certified, but that it does not require “the kind of 25 substantive oversight required when reviewing a settlement binding upon the class.” Diaz v. Trust 26 Territory of Pac. Islands, 876 F.2d 1401, 1408 (9th Cir. 1989). “This holding pre-dates substantial 27 1 amendments to Rule 23 in 2003, and courts in this district have noted ‘some uncertainty’ about the 2 continued application of Rule 23(e) to precertification settlement proposals in the wake of the 3 2003 amendments.” Albers v. Yarbrough World Sols., LLC, No. 5:19-CV-05896-EJD, 2021 WL 4 1925520, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2021) (citing Lyons v. Bank of America, NA, No. C 11–1232 5 CW, 2012 W L 5940846, at * 1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012)). “But our decisions have ‘generally 6 assumed that it does’ apply[.]’ ” Accordingly, the Court follows Diaz to evaluate the proposed 7 settlement and dismissal here. 8 Under Diaz, the Court must “inquire into the terms and circumstances of any dismissal or 9 compromise to ensure that it is not collusive or prejudicial.” 876 F.2d at 1408. In particular, the 10 Court should consider whether class members face possible prejudice from: 11 (1) class members' possible reliance on the filing of the action if they are likely to know of it either because of publicity or other 12 circumstances, (2) lack of adequate time for class members to file other actions, because of a rapidly approaching statute of limitations, 13 (3) any settlement or concession of class interests made by the class representative or counsel in order to further their own interests. 14 15 Id. 16 Based on the statements in paragraph 8 of the Van Ert Declaration, the Court concludes 17 that the settlement in this case, including the dismissal without prejudice of the putative class 18 members’ claims, is neither collusive nor prejudicial to the absent class members and therefore 19 may be approved under Diaz. Among other things, Van Ert states in his declaration: 20 (b) the Class Action has not become widely known to the public generally or to the members of the putative class (i.e., there has been 21 no publicity); (c) the members of the putative class will not be prejudiced, given that they retain all rights to pursue their own claims, 22 this lawsuit was just recently filed, and the Parties have not engaged in discovery or substantial motion practice; and (d) my office and I 23 are currently not aware of any putative class member who intends to bring a claim or who, in reliance on Plaintiff’s Class Action, has 24 refrained from bringing a similar claim. 25 Van Ert Decl., ¶ 8. 26 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ request for approval of the stipulated 27 dismissal of the individual and class claims in this case and ORDERS as follows: 1 1. Plaintiff Ken Hakomori’s individual claims are dismissed with prejudice. 2 || 2. The class claims are dismissed without prejudice as to the putative class members. 3 The Clerk is directed to close the case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 || Dated: August 13, 2025

J PH C. SPERO

8 nited States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28