Blanca Mendoza v. County of Kings ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BLANCA MENDOZA, et al., No. 1:21-cv-00721-NONE-BAM 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER CONSTRUING REQUEST TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS STATE LAW 13 v. CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT AUGUSTUS AS A REQUEST FOR LEAVE 14 COUNTY OF KINGS, et al., TO AMEND AND GRANTING SAME 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 18) 16 17 On May 3, 2021, plaintiffs filed a complaint against Kings County and numerous Kings 18 County Sheriff deputies, asserting both state and federal causes of action related to events that 19 allegedly took place during a law enforcement search of plaintiffs’ home in May 2020. (Doc. No. 20 1.) On September 15, 2021, plaintiffs filed a “notice of FRCP Rule 41 voluntary dismissal” of 21 the state law claims asserted against defendant Augustus “due to statute of limitations issues.” 22 (Doc. No. 18.) Plaintiffs indicate they wish to maintain their federal claims against defendant 23 Augustus. (Id.) This is a clear statement of intent to withdraw the state law claims that the court 24 will construe as a request to amend the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. 25 See Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 690 (9th Cir. 2005) 26 (explaining that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure15, Rule 41, controls where a party agrees to 27 dismiss some but not all claims from a case). Given that leave to amend should be freely given, 28 ///// 1 | and that there is no opposition to the motion'—leave to amend to remove the state law claims 2 | against defendant Augustus will bb GRANTED. See United States v. Hill, No. 2:17-CV-608- 3 | MCE-EFB, 2020 WL 5502327, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2020), report and recommendation 4 | adopted, 2020 WL 6158232 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2020). Within fourteen days of the date of this 5 | order, plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint removing the state law claims against defendant 6 | Augustus. 7 | IT IS ORDERED. si am 8 Li. wh F Dated: _ September 27, 2021 Sea 1" S098 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In fact, defendant Augustus has already answered the complaint assuming the state law claims against him have been dismissed. (Doc. No. 19 at 2n.1.)