ORDER APPROVING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE (DOC. 80)

TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge.

Plaintiffs initiated this shareholder derivative action on July 5, 2011, alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment relating to Cincinnati Bell's 2010 executive compensation. While this case was pending, a similar action was filed in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas (Raul v. Cassidy, Case No. A 105305). The parties to Raul subsequently reached a settlement agreement, which the state court approved in an Order and Final Judgment after notice to the shareholders.1

In light of the settlement in Raul, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion seeking to dismiss this case with prejudice (Doc. 80). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1(c), "[a] derivative action may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court's approval. Notice of a proposed settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise must be given to shareholders or members in the manner that the court orders."

Where notice and representation are adequate, a settlement decree in a derivative suit is res judicata. Smith v. Alleghany Corp., 394 F.2d 381, 391 (2d Cir. 1968); see also, Nathan v. Rowan, 651 F.2d 1223, 1226 (6th Cir. 1981). The state court settlement in Raul therefore effectively bars the continuation of this action, and approval of Plaintiffs' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal is appropriate. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED and this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Further, because the shareholders were given notice prior to judicial approval of the Raul settlement, the Court finds that no additional notice is necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.