Patino v. County of Merced ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ELENOR SKYE VILLANUEVA PATINO CASE NO. 1:18-CV-01468-AWI-SAB et al., 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING STIPULATION AND 11 PROPOSED ORDER v. 12 (Doc. No. 45) COUNTY OF MERCED et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiffs Elenor Patino and Lillyanna Patino (“Plaintiffs”) stipulated with Defendants 16 California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., Jessica Aguilar, Brandon Boggs, and Amber Nunes to 17 dismiss one of Plaintiffs’ four causes of action — namely, the second cause of action for violation 18 of California Government Code § 845.6 — against California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., 19 Jessica Aguilar, Brandon Boggs, and Amber Nunes. See Doc. No. 42 (first stipulation and 20 proposed order). According to these parties, the stipulation was made pursuant to Rule 41(a) of 21 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and these parties asked the Court to issue an order adopting 22 the stipulation pursuant to Rule 41. The stipulation neither encompassed nor was agreed to by 23 Defendants County of Merced, Vernon Warnke, Greg Sullivan, Corey Gibson, and Aaron 24 Rosenburg. 25 The Court denied the stipulation and proposed order because they were procedurally 26 improper, and the Court clearly stated why they were procedurally improper: 27 The stipulation and proposed order are procedurally improper. When a party seeks to dismiss some, but not all, of its claims, Rule 15 governs, not Rule 41. 28 See Gen. Signal Corp. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 66 F.3d 1500, 1513 (9th WAS 4.10 VETO I OPA RYUUUETIOCTIL PO FOI Ue POY ee Cir. 1995) (“[W]e have held that Rule 15, not Rule 41, governs the situation when a 1 party dismisses some, but not all, of its claims.”). Accordingly, if Plaintiffs wish to dismiss less than all of their claims, then they must attempt to do so pursuant Rule 2 15’s amendment procedures. 3 | Doc. No. 44. The order denying the stipulation and proposed order was filed on April 6, 2020. 4 The next day, on April 7, 2020, the parties filed a second stipulation and proposed order to 5 | dismiss the second cause of action against Defendants California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., 6 | Jessica Aguilar, Brandon Boggs, and Amber Nunes. Unlike the first stipulation and proposed 7 \order, the second stipulation and proposed order were agreed to by all Defendants, including the 8 County of Merced, Vernon Warnke, Greg Sullivan, Corey Gibson, and Aaron Rosenburg. But just 9 |like the first stipulation and proposed order, the second stipulation and proposed order were made 10 | pursuant to Rule 41. In other words, despite the Court clearly telling Plaintiffs that they must use 11 15’s amendment procedures if Plaintiffs want to dismiss less than all of their claims, 12 | Plaintiffs nonetheless proceeded with the second stipulation and proposed order pursuant to Rule 13 not Rule 15’s amendment procedures. Consequently, the second stipulation and proposed 14 are procedurally improper and will be denied for the same reason that the first stipulation 15 proposed order were procedurally improper and were denied. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the second stipulation and proposed order to 17 | dismiss the second cause of action for violation of California Government Code § 845.6 against 18 | Defendants California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., Jessica Aguilar, Brandon Boggs, and Amber 19 | Nunes (Doc. No. 45) are DENIED. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 39 | Dated: _ April 17, 2020 7 Sz, 7 Cb Lec "SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28