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 (sgreen@girardsharp.com) 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) (stoll@cohenmilstein.com) 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* (csaler@cohenmilstein.com) 7 100 N. 18th Street, Suite 1820 8 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel.: (267) 479-5700 9 10 -and- 11 Steven J. Toll* 12 (stoll@cohenmilstein.com) S. Douglas Bunch 13 (dbunch@cohenmilstein.com) 14 Margaret (Emmy) Wydman (ewydman@cohenmilstein.com) 15 Nathan Weiser 16 (nweiser@cohenmilstein.com) 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 (sgreene@girardsharp.com) 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 (apolk@girardsharp.com) 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 (csaler@cohenmilstein.com) 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