Garcia v. Praxair Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 FRESNO DIVISION 10 11 | PATRICK GARCIA, Case No. 1:18-cv-01493-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH 13 | y. PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH AND SIXTH CAUSES OF ACTION 14 | PRAXAIR, INC., (ECF No. 34) I5 Defendant. 16 17 Patrick Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in this action on October 29, 2018. On April 2, 18 || 2020, a stipulation to dismiss the fifth and sixth causes of action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 || 41(a)(1)(A)Cii) was filed. 20 The Ninth Circuit has held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) cannot be used to 21 || dismiss individual claims against defendants, and that Rule 15 is the proper mechanism to do so. 22 || See Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (“In the 23 || specific context of Rule 41(a)(1), we have held that the Rule does not allow for piecemeal 24 || dismissals. Instead, withdrawals of individual claims against a given defendant are governed by 25 || [Rule 15].”); Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding a 26 || plaintiff cannot use Rule 41 “to dismiss, unilaterally, a single claim from a multi-claim complaint.”); 27 || but see Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The Plaintiff may dismiss 28 1 || some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice.”). The 2 || Court finds it proper to construe the parties’ stipulation to dismiss the individual cause of action as 3 || consent to amend the complaint under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Hells 4 || Canyon Pres. Council, 403 F.3d at 689 (“The fact that a voluntary dismissal of a claim under Rule 5 || 41(a) is properly labeled an amendment under Rule 15 is a technical, not a substantive distinction.”’) 6 || (quoting Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc., 203 F.3d 782, 784 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Therefore, the Court will 7 || give full effect to the parties’ stipulation through a Rule 15 amendment. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to the parties’ stipulation the 9 || operative complaint filed October 29, 2018 (ECF No. 1) is DEEMED AMENDED and the fifth and 10 || sixth causes of action are no longer alleged against Defendant Praxair, Inc. 11 b IT IS SO ORDERED. □□ (Se 13 || Dated: _ April 2, 2020 OF 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Case No. 1:18-CV-01493-LJO-SAB WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH AND