December 18, 2023

Dougan v. Centerplate: Dismissing a Federal Court Class Action in Favor of State Court

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Newsletter

Ross Weiner

|

December 18, 2023

Dougan v. Centerplate, Inc., et al. , 1 began as a wage-and-hour class action filed in state court.  Defendants removed the case to the Southern District of California.  Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a separate—but similar—action in state court pursuant to California’s Private Attorneys General Act.  Defendants were unable to remove the second state court action to federal court.  

Fast forward a year.  Following mediation (but long before any class certification briefing had begun), the parties negotiated an agreement that called for the “global settlement approval process to proceed in [state court],” with the parties agreeing to dismiss the federal case once the state court matter was finally resolved.  The Southern District of California asked the parties to address what level of scrutiny, if any, it should apply to such a pre-class certification dismissal stipulation.  In response, the parties argued that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), dismissal should be automatic.  To make a long matter short, the court agreed, concluding that “the 2003 amendment to Rule 23(e) was intended to take courts out of the business of reviewing pre-certification voluntary dismissals.” 2

A brief overview of the federal rules will help explain this.

FRCP 41(a)(1)(ii) permits a plaintiff to “dismiss an action without a court order by filing … a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” This, according to the Ninth Circuit, confers an “absolute right” to dismiss an action. 3   Indeed, such a stipulation of dismissal causes the district court in which the action is pending to lose jurisdiction over the case. 4   But Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 is not the end of the matter, as it is “subject to Rule[] 23(e).” 5

Before 2003, the Ninth Circuit interpreted then-Rule 23(e) to mandate court review of pre-certification voluntary dismissals in class actions.  In Diaz v. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands , 6 the Ninth Circuit found that a district court must hold a hearing and “inquire into the terms and circumstances of any dismissal or compromise to ensure that it is not collusive or prejudicial” before accepting the parties’ dismissal stipulation.  

But the 2003 amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) changed this, as the Rule now reads: “[t]he claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class —or a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement—may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court’s approval.” 7   Despite this unambiguous language, courts in the Ninth Circuit have split on whether to substantively review pre-certification dismissals. 8   In Centerplate , Judge Sammartino tries to slam the door on the notion that the district court has any role in assessing pre-certification voluntary dismissals, writing: “The legislative history of the 2003 amendment to Rule 23(e) is inconsistent with the approach ” taken by courts mandating a review. 9  

And how does Judge Sammartino know this?  Because the Rule’s drafters initially proposed for public comment a version of Rule 23(e) that would have required courts to “approve a voluntary dismissal, withdrawal, or settlement made before a determination whether to certify a class.” 10   In other words, a rule that would have followed Diaz.  But after public comment, the drafters revised the proposed rule to “delete the requirement that the parties must win court approval for a precertification dismissal or settlement.” 11   According to Judge Sammartino, the “Advisory Committee Report demonstrates that the Rules’ drafters made the express decision to reject the Diaz approach.” 12   And lest there be any doubt, Judge Sammartino notes that the fact that the parties were looking to certify a class (for settlement purposes) in state court does not trigger any review obligations in the district court. 13

Accordingly, Judge Sammartino approved the stipulation and dismissed the case.

***

Dougan is a thoughtful and well-reasoned decision that should help litigants get comfortable with the prospect of dismissing a federal putative class action in favor of one pending in state court.  Such a dismissal, so long as it is agreed to by all parties, should be automatic and need not trigger or require any substantive review by the court.

***

Certum Group, the industry leader in structuring class action settlements, can help defendants in class action litigation evaluate the litigation options and design an optimal settlement structure that is backed by full risk transfer to an insurer.  Certum Group offers two insurance solutions for defendants in class action litigation.

Class Action Settlement Insurance (CASI) provides companies with the certainty they need to get back to business.  It is the only product on the market that allows companies to mitigate, cap, and transfer the financial risk of settlement in existing class action litigation. Designed by Certum Group in response to businesses’ need for financial certainty in class action lawsuits and resulting settlements, CASI eliminates the unintended consequences of settlement and helps businesses exit litigation for a known, fixed cost.

Litigation Buyout (LBO) Insurance provides companies with the ability to successfully ring-fence litigation exposure and transfer the full financial risk of class action, antitrust, and non-class litigation. With LBO Insurance, the insurance carrier takes on the financial risks and liabilities for businesses – at any time before settlement and for a known, fixed cost. In the context of an M&A transaction or financing, LBO Insurance negates the requirement for the use of escrows or indemnities, providing certainty and finality to both parties to the transaction.

Contact us today to learn more about our creative insurance solutions to resolve existing or to ring-fence threatened or existing litigation for a known, fixed cost.  

1. 22-cv-1496 (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 15 (Order Dismissing Entire Action Without Prejudice Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)) (the “Order”).  

2. Id. at p.3.  

3. Am. Soccer Co. v. Score First Enters. , 187 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 1999).  

4. Black Rock City, LLC v. Pershing Cnty. Bd. Of Comm’rs , 637 F. App’x 488, 488 (9th Cir. 2016).  

5. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A).  

6. 876 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1989).  

7. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (emphasis added).  

8. See Order at pp. 5-6 (listing cases).  

9. Id. at p.6 (emphasis added).

10.  Id.   

11.  Id. at p.7.

12.  Id.   

13.  Id. at p.8.  

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Certum Group Can Help

Get in touch to start discussing options.

Recent Content

People in a meeting room, sitting around a table, brainstorming. Glass wall reflects outside.

Certum Group Expands Platform to Include Operational Services with Launch of Certum Legal Solutions

By Certum Group Team • December 4, 2025
Certum Group, a leader in litigation risk management, is pleased to announce the launch of Certum Legal Solutions (CLS), a managed services organization (MSO) that helps law firms handle their day-to-day operations. CLS expands Certum Group’s platform beyond litigation finance and insurance into technology-driven operational support for law firms. With this launch, Certum is now the only provider to offer funding, insurance, and operational services through a single, integrated platform. Built by trial lawyers and experienced legal operations professionals, CLS delivers end-to-end support for mass tort and single-event litigation practices, including intake, pre-litigation investigation, plaintiff discovery support, settlement claims processing, and client communications. The CLS platform leverages proprietary and heavily customized tools such as integrations for rapid medical record collection, a mobile client app, automated document workflows, electronic signature systems, and an in house call center to streamline case management and boost efficiency. CLS currently manages thousands of cases for law firm clients across the United States and is designed to scale quickly to meet changing caseloads while maintaining control and delivering a consistent client experience. “Our clients have long relied on Certum to mitigate litigation risk and financial risk; with Certum Legal Solutions, we can now mitigate operational risk as well,” added David Diamond, Managing Director at Certum Group. “Because CLS is built the way trial lawyers think about building cases, from intake to resolution, firms get a turnkey, technology forward solution that measurably improves efficiency and outcomes,” said Asim M. Badaruzzaman, CEO of Certum Legal Solutions. CLS originated from a services operation launched in 2024 and was acquired by Certum Group in 2025. The new business line uses a customized fee for service model that aligns pricing with the scope and value of each engagement, allowing firms to avoid the capital costs and staffing requirements of building these capabilities themselves. While the initial focus is on mass tort and single event, Certum plans to extend CLS capabilities to additional practice areas over time, further expanding the company’s comprehensive approach to funding, insurance, and operational support. For more information, please contact: David Diamond Managing Director, Certum Group ddiamond@certumgroup.com Asim M. Badaruzzaman CEO, Certum Legal Solutions asim.badaruzzaman@certumlegalsolutions.com
A gavel rests on top of a stack of US one-hundred dollar bills.

Bloomberg Law: Litigation Funding Protects IP ‘Davids’ from Predatory Goliaths

By Kirstine Rogers • November 6, 2025
The recent legislative push—then retreat—to impose a tax on litigation funding returns didn’t change the law, but it clarified what’s at stake. It shined a spotlight on the solution that litigation funding provides for the legal industry and to intellectual property owners. Litigation finance doesn’t present a taxation loophole to close. It’s a process that allows plaintiffs with strong claims—and limited resources—to make it to the courthouse steps. In the IP world, where the costs of litigation can eclipse the means of most inventors, startups, and universities, non-recourse litigation funding often is the only way to level the playing field. The investment risks for funders are high; the returns shouldn’t be penalized. The right policy response isn’t punitive taxation or blanket disclosure of sensitive funding terms, but acceptance of funding as a necessary tool and tailored transparency under the court’s supervision, so that financial disparity doesn’t become a tactical weapon.  The goal is simple: Keep the courthouse doors open while maintaining fairness and integrity in the adversarial system.
Statue of Lady Justice holding scales and sword, blindfolded.

Litigation Finance Isn’t a Hidden Tax. It’s a Market Correction.

By W. Tyler Perry • October 23, 2025
It feels like every couple of weeks an article appears lamenting the rise of litigation finance as the death of capitalism and the birth of something monstrous. The most recent chorus began over the summer when the CEO of Chubb called litigation finance “ a hidden tax on society ” in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. A month later, the CEO of The Hartford grieved on an investor call that litigation finance has “turned our judicial system into a gambling system.” And just last month, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association ’s Senior Vice President of Federal Government Relations exclaimed: “Too many baseless claims, filed by lawyers motivated by profit are clogging our legal system with unnecessary lawsuits, increasing costs and delaying swift resolution of genuine legal claims.”  As someone who has been a big firm defense lawyer, a small firm plaintiff lawyer, and now a litigation funder, I can confidently say that these arguments fundamentally misunderstand litigation finance and its incentives, while simultaneously conflating the interests of large repeat defendants with those of society writ large.