In re: Compass Securities Litigation — Entry #68: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Relief from Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice re Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of an Action (Pursuant to FRCP 41a(1)) 67 filed…

Case 8:25-cv-00981-MRA-KES       Document 68     Filed 12/04/25   Page 1 of 9 Page ID
                                      #:1072


 1   GIRARD SHARP LLP
     Sean P. Greene (Bar No. 328718)
 2   ([email protected])
     222 Pacific Coast Highway, 10th Floor
 3   El Segundo, CA 90245
     Telephone: (415) 544-6453
 4   Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
 5   Counsel for Lead Plaintiff EAS Carpenters
     and Liaison Counsel for the Class
 6
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
 7   Steven J. Toll (admitted pro hac vice)
     ([email protected])
 8   1100 New York Ave. NW ● Suite 800
     Washington, DC 20005
 9   Telephone: (202) 408-4600
10   Counsel for Lead Plaintiff EAS Carpenters
     and Lead Counsel for the Class
11
     [Additional counsel appear on signature page]
12
                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
                         CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15
16                                            Case No: 8:25-cv-00981-MRA-KES
17 In re: Compass Securities Litigation       Hon. Mónica Ramírez Almadani
18                                            LEAD PLAINTIFF EAS CARPENTERS’
                                              NOTICE OF MOTION AND
19                                            UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR RULE
                                              60(b) RELIEF
20
                                              Date:        January 8, 2025
21                                            Time:        10:00 a.m.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
     LEAD PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR RULE 60(B) RELIEF
     Case No. 8:25-cv-00981-MRA-KES


Case 8:25-cv-00981-MRA-KES        Document 68       Filed 12/04/25   Page 2 of 9 Page ID
                                       #:1073


 1                    NOTICE OF MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION
 2
           TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
 3
 4         PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 8, 2025 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon
 5 thereafter as the matter may be heard by the Court—in the courtroom of the Honorable
 6
   Mónica Ramírez Almadani, Ronald Reagan Federal Building and United States
 7
 8 Courthouse, Santa Ana Courtroom 9B, 9th Floor—Lead Plaintiff EAS Carpenters will
 9 and hereby does respectfully move, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
10
   60(b)(1), for relief from its October 31, 2025 voluntary dismissal with prejudice (ECF
11
12 No. 67), to instead voluntarily dismiss without prejudice. Lead Plaintiff seeks this relief
13 to correct a scrivener’s error in Lead Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, which
14
   inadvertently stated that the dismissal was with prejudice. Lead Plaintiff respectfully
15
16 requests—and Defendants do not oppose—that the dismissal instead be without
17 prejudice, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) provides by default and as the
18
   parties intended. For the reasons set forth herein, this Motion should be granted, and the
19
20 Court should enter an order either: (1) declaring that the above-captioned action is
21 dismissed without prejudice; or (2) allowing Lead Plaintiff to file a corrected notice of
22
   voluntary dismissal without prejudice. A proposed order is submitted herewith.
23
24
25
26
27
28
                                                2
     LEAD PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR RULE 60(B) RELIEF
     Case No. 8:25-cv-00981-MRA-KES


Case 8:25-cv-00981-MRA-KES        Document 68        Filed 12/04/25   Page 3 of 9 Page ID
                                       #:1074


 1               MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF’S
 2                 UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR RULE 60(b) RELIEF
 3 I.      INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
 4
           On October 31, 2025, Lead Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal,
 5
 6 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), “dismiss[ing] the above-
 7 captioned action in its entirety, against all Defendants, with prejudice and without
 8
   costs.” ECF No. 67. In that Notice, Lead Plaintiff explained that “there is another
 9
10 virtually identical class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
11 Connecticut, as the principal defendant Compass Diversified is headquartered in
12
   Connecticut,” and that, given the progress in that litigation, the parties agreed that this
13
14 case should be litigated in Connecticut. Id. Because Defendants had not yet filed either
15 an answer or motion for summary judgment, Lead Plaintiff’s Notice constituted the
16
   dismissal of the above-captioned action, FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A). Since then, a
17
18 schedule has been put in place in the operative action in the District of Connecticut, and
19 Lead Plaintiff has been diligently working on an amended complaint to be filed there.
20
         On December 2, Lead Plaintiff became aware that it had inadvertently filed the
21
22 Notice as a dismissal with prejudice, despite the parties’ intention that the dismissal be
23
     without prejudice, given the ongoing litigation in Connecticut. A dismissal with
24
     prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes that could
25
26 potentially bar the parties from continuing this action in the District of Connecticut. See
27
     Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, 321-22 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining that federal
28
                                                 3
     LEAD PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR RULE 60(B) RELIEF
     Case No. 8:25-cv-00981-MRA-KES


Case 8:25-cv-00981-MRA-KES         Document 68        Filed 12/04/25   Page 4 of 9 Page ID
                                        #:1075


 1 courts apply federal res judicata principles to the judgments of other federal courts). As
 2
   Lead Plaintiff is both eligible for and entitled to relief under Rule 60(b), Lead Plaintiff
 3
 4 respectfully moves this Court for relief from the Notice seeking an order either: (1)
 5 declaring that the above-captioned action is dismissed without prejudice; or (2)
 6
   allowing Lead Plaintiff to file a corrected notice of voluntary dismissal without
 7
 8 prejudice.
 9 II.     ARGUMENT
10
           A.     Lead Plaintiff Is Eligible for Rule 60(b) Relief.
11
12         Rule 60(b) permits a court, “[o]n motion and just terms,” to “relieve a party . . .
13 from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.” As a dismissal with prejudice is a final
14
   judgment, order, or proceeding, Rule 60(b) is the proper vehicle for relief under the
15
16 present circumstances. See Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002)
17 (“The phrase ‘final judgment on the merits’ is often used interchangeably with
18
   ‘dismissal with prejudice.’”); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d
19
20 683 (9th Cir. 2005) (“‘[F]inal judgment on the merits’ is synonymous with ‘dismissal
21 with prejudice.’” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)); see also Waetzig v.
22
   Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 604 U.S. 305, 311-12 (2025) (resolving a circuit split
23
24 in holding that a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a), regardless of whether
25
     it is with or without prejudice, “qualifies as a ‘final . . . proceeding’ under Rule 60(b)”).
26
     As Lead Plaintiff seeks to correct its filing promptly after becoming aware of the
27
28 inadvertent scrivener’s error and within approximately one month of filing, this request
                                                  4
     LEAD PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR RULE 60(B) RELIEF
     Case No. 8:25-cv-00981-MRA-KES


Case 8:25-cv-00981-MRA-KES        Document 68        Filed 12/04/25   Page 5 of 9 Page ID
                                       #:1076


 1 is well within a “reasonable time.” See FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1) (motions for relief under
 2
   Rule 60(b) “must be made within a reasonable time” and, when based on reasons such
 3
 4 as excusable neglect, can be made “no more than a year after the entry of judgment or
 5 order or the date of the proceeding”).
 6
         B.     Lead Plaintiff Is Entitled to Rule 60(b) Relief.
 7
 8       Having established that Lead Plaintiff is procedurally eligible for Rule 60(b)
 9 relief, Lead Plaintiff turns to the substance of Rule 60(b), under which Lead Plaintiff is
10
   entitled to relief.
11
12         Rule 60(b) provides relief for six enumerated reasons. See FED. R. CIV. P.
13 60(b)(1)-(6). Relevant here is the first of these reasons: “mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
14
   or excusable neglect[.]” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(1). As explained above, Lead Plaintiff
15
16 sought to dismiss this California action because “from a standpoint of judicial economy
17 and convenience, it would be more efficient to have this case litigated in Connecticut”
18
   as the principal defendant Compass Diversified is headquartered in Connecticut and
19
20 that action had been progressing. ECF No. 67. Thus, the filing of the Notice itself
21 demonstrates the parties’ intent to continue litigating this action in a different forum,
22
   and Lead Plaintiff made a drafting error in dismissing with prejudice instead of without
23
24 prejudice.
25
           Lead Plaintiff seeks to correct this excusable mistake as otherwise, the Notice
26
     could operate as a “final judgment on the merits” that bars “all grounds for recovery
27
28 which could have been asserted, whether they were or not, in a prior suit between the
                                                 5
     LEAD PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR RULE 60(B) RELIEF
     Case No. 8:25-cv-00981-MRA-KES


Case 8:25-cv-00981-MRA-KES        Document 68       Filed 12/04/25   Page 6 of 9 Page ID
                                       #:1077


 1 same parties . . . on the same cause of action[.]” Ross v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 634
 2
   F.2d 453, 457 (9th Cir.1980). Correcting as much poses no prejudice to Defendants,
 3
 4 who do not oppose this Motion and who agreed to continue to litigate these claims in
 5 Connecticut. Unlike in other instances in which the Ninth Circuit has denied Rule
 6
   60(b)(1) relief, this is not an attempt to “remedy the effects of a deliberate and
 7
 8 independent litigation decision that a party later comes to regret through second
 9 thoughts[.]” See Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir.
10
   2006). Because Lead Plaintiff’s scrivener’s error is a legitimate mistake, Lead Plaintiff
11
12 is entitled to Rule 60(b) relief.
13 III.    CONCLUSION
14
           Lead Plaintiff is both eligible for and entitled to Rule 60(b) relief to correct the
15
16 dismissal of the above-captioned action such that it is dismissed without prejudice. Lead
17 Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that this Court enter an order either: (1)
18
   declaring that the above-captioned action is dismissed without prejudice; or (2)
19
20 allowing Lead Plaintiff to file a corrected notice of voluntary dismissal without
21 prejudice.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
                                                6
     LEAD PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR RULE 60(B) RELIEF
     Case No. 8:25-cv-00981-MRA-KES


Case 8:25-cv-00981-MRA-KES       Document 68       Filed 12/04/25   Page 7 of 9 Page ID
                                      #:1078


 1
     Dated: December 4, 2025                  Respectfully submitted,
 2
 3                                            COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS
 4                                            & TOLL PLLC
 5                                            By: /s/ Christina D. Saler
 6                                            Christina D. Saler*
                                              ([email protected])
 7                                            100 N. 18th Street, Suite 1820
 8                                            Philadelphia, PA 19103
                                              Tel.: (267) 479-5700
 9
10                                            -and-
11                                            Steven J. Toll*
12                                            ([email protected])
                                              S. Douglas Bunch
13                                            ([email protected])
14                                            Margaret (Emmy) Wydman
                                              ([email protected])
15                                            Nathan Weiser
16                                            ([email protected])
                                              1100 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 800
17                                            Washington, D.C. 20005
18                                            Tel.: (202) 406-4600

19                                            Counsel for Lead Plaintiff EAS Carpenters
20                                            and Lead Counsel for the Class

21                                            * Admitted pro hac vice
22                                            GIRARD SHARP LLP
23
                                              Sean P. Greene (Bar No. 328718)
24
                                              ([email protected])
25                                            222 Pacific Coast Highway, 10th Floor
                                              El Segundo, CA 90245
26
                                              Tel.: (415) 544-6453
27
                                              Adam E. Polk (Bar No. 273000)
28
                                               7
     LEAD PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR RULE 60(B) RELIEF
     Case No. 8:25-cv-00981-MRA-KES


Case 8:25-cv-00981-MRA-KES       Document 68       Filed 12/04/25   Page 8 of 9 Page ID
                                      #:1079


 1                                            ([email protected])
 2                                            601 California St., Suite 1400
                                              San Francisco, CA 94108
 3                                            Tel.: (415) 544-6280
 4
                                              Counsel for Lead Plaintiff EAS Carpenters
 5                                            and Liaison Counsel for the Class
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
                                               8
     LEAD PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR RULE 60(B) RELIEF
     Case No. 8:25-cv-00981-MRA-KES


Case 8:25-cv-00981-MRA-KES       Document 68       Filed 12/04/25   Page 9 of 9 Page ID
                                      #:1080


 1                             CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 2         I hereby certify that on December 4, 2025, I caused the foregoing to be
 3 electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will
 4 send notification of such filing to the email addresses denoted on the Electronic Mail
 5 Notice List.
 6
                                                   /s/ Christina D. Saler
 7                                                 Christina D. Saler
 8                                                 ([email protected])
                                                   100 N. 18th Street, Suite 1820
 9                                                 Philadelphia, PA 19103
10                                                 Tel.: (267) 479-5700

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
                                               9
     LEAD PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR RULE 60(B) RELIEF
     Case No. 8:25-cv-00981-MRA-KES