Judge Elaine Lu, Case Number: 21STCV40161, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

This is a putative wage and hour class action. Plaintiff Deanna Kim (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she and the putative class members are and were non-exempt employees of Defendant Royalty Ambulance Services, Inc. (“Defendant”) and that Defendant violated the Labor Code, relevant Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders, and the Business and Professions Code.

On November 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed her class action complaint. In the complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: (1) unpaid minimum wages; (2) unpaid overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (6) failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment; (7) failure to reimburse business expenses; (8) unfair competition; and (9) civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).

On September 20, 2022, the Court – presided by the Honorable Yvette M. Palazuelos – granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. (Order 9/20/22.) On June 20, 2023, the Court – presided by Judge Palazuelos – granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order compelling arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.97. (Order 6/20/23.)

On November 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to voluntarily dismiss class claims without prejudice and lift the stay on the PAGA claims.[1] No opposition or reply has been filed.

“A dismissal of an entire class action, or of any party or cause of action in a class action, requires court approval.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.770(a); see also CCP § 581(k) [“No action may be dismissed which has been determined to be a class action under the provisions of this code unless and until notice that the court deems adequate has been given and the court orders the dismissal.”].)

“Requests for dismissal must be accompanied by a declaration setting forth the facts on which the party relies. The declaration must clearly state whether consideration, direct or indirect, is being given for the dismissal and must describe the consideration in detail.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.770(a).)

Plaintiff moves to voluntarily dismiss all class claims in the instant action without prejudice and lift the stay on the PAGA claims. Plaintiff’s Counsel states that after the Court – presided by Judge Palazuelos – vacated the prior Court Order compelling arbitration, “the Parties engaged in discovery, meet and confer efforts, and informal discovery conferences. Defendant produced information supporting that class members had agreed to arbitration and waived participation in class actions throughout the Class Period. Accordingly, Plaintiff has agreed to voluntarily dismiss the class claims alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint (filed on November 1, 2021) without prejudice, and pursue Plaintiff’s remaining claims for herself and the aggrieved employees.” (Serb Decl. ¶ 4.) Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s Counsel has received any consideration in exchange for agreeing to dismiss the class claims without prejudice. (Serb Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.) This information satisfies Rule 3.770(a).

Notice to the putative class members of the dismissal is not required. “If the court has not ruled on class certification, or if notice of the pendency of the action has not been provided to class members in a case in which such notice was required, notice of the proposed dismissal may be given in the manner and to those class members specified by the court, or the action may be dismissed without notice to the class members if the court finds that the dismissal will not prejudice them.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.770(c).) Thus, the notice provisions of Rule 3.770(c) apply only where precertification dismissal of an entire class action would potentially prejudice absent class members. As Plaintiff moves to dismiss the class claims without prejudice, putative class members are not prejudiced because they may bring their own respective claims. Thus, notice to the putative class members of the dismissal is not necessary.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Deanna Kim’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the class claims without prejudice and to lift the stay on the PAGA claims is GRANTED.

No later than March 26, 2025, Defendant must file and serve a responsive pleading.

No later than April 2, 2025, the parties must file a Joint Status Report regarding: (1) their willingness to engage in private mediation and if so, on what proposed time frame, (2) their time estimate for trial, and (3) at least three proposed trial dates that fall on a Monday. The parties are ordered to appear on April 9, 2025 at 10:00 am for a trial setting conference.

Plaintiff is ordered to download the instant signed order from the Court's website and to file proof of service of the instant order on all other parties within five (5) days.

[1] Confusingly, the Conclusion of Plaintiff’s Memorandum requests “that this Court enter an order dismissing Plaintiff’s representative PAGA claims without prejudice and an order dismissing Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims with prejudice.” Presumably, this is a typographical error because it contradicts the notice of Plaintiff’s motion, the body of Plaintiff’s motion, and the proposed order that Plaintiff has lodged, which all make clear that Plaintiff seeks an order lifting the stay imposed on her PAGA claim and dismissing only the class claims.