Opinion
Case No. 3:08 CV 2235.
March 19, 2010
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is now before the Court on the Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 21) on the ground of res judicata. The motion will be granted.
The Plaintiffs have filed an abbreviated response (Doc. 25) to the motion, lodging pro forma objections on the grounds that: one of the Plaintiffs, Rinalkumar Patel, was not "covered by the class action"; and that the Plaintiffs "were not given notice" of the class or an "opportunity to opt out" or be "represented by counsel of their choice." For the reasons stated in the two briefs Defendants have filed in connection with this motion (Docs. 21, 26), the Court is persuaded that the recent decision of the Central District of California, Costelo v. Chertoff, 2009 WL 4030516 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2009), is res judicata as to all claims in this suit.
Therefore, the motion to dismiss (Doc. 21) is granted, and the case closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.