Doris Anderson v. County of Fresno ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DORIS ANDERSON, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01134-ADA-SAB 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING RULE 41 STIPULATION 12 AS PROCEDURALLY IMPROPER, v. REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS AND ANY 13 JOINING PARTIES TO FILE MOTION FOR COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., LEAVE TO AMEND IN LIGHT OF 14 OPPOSITION, AND REQUIRING PARTIES Defendants. TO ADDRESS PREVIOUSLY ENTERED 15 STIPULATION OF CLARIFICATION 16 (ECF Nos. 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 92) 17 FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE 18 19 Following the adoption of findings and recommendations on Defendants’ motion to 20 dismiss, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on September 7, 2023. (ECF No. 85.) On 21 October 4, 2023, a stipulation to dismiss Plaintiffs’ second cause of action against Defendants 22 Genevieve Garcia, R.N., and Maria Guerrero, R.N, was filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 23 Procedure 41(a), signed by only Plaintiffs and Defendants California Forensic Medical Group, 24 Inc. (“CFMG”), Genevieve Garcia, R.N., and Maria Guerrero, R.N. (ECF No. 88.) 25 The Ninth Circuit has held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) cannot be used 26 to dismiss individual claims against defendants, and that Rule 15 is the proper mechanism to do 27 so. See Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (“In the specific context of Rule 41(a)(1), we have held that the Rule does not allow for piecemeal 1 dismissals. Instead, withdrawals of individual claims against a given defendant are governed by 2 [Rule 15].”); Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding a 3 plaintiff cannot use Rule 41 “to dismiss, unilaterally, a single claim from a multi-claim 4 complaint.”); but see Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The 5 Plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims, through a Rule 6 41(a)(1) notice.”). Accordingly, Rule 41(a) may not be employed to dismiss fewer than all the 7 claims against a particular defendant. See Ethridge, 861 F.2d at 1392. 8 Therefore, because the stipulation requests dismissal of fewer than all claims asserted 9 against Defendants Genevieve Garcia, R.N. and Maria Guerrero, R.N., the Court found Rule 15, 10 not Rule 41, is the proper vehicle to accomplish the partial dismissal (ECF No. 90). See Hells 11 Canyon Pres. Council, 403 F.3d at 689 (“The fact that a voluntary dismissal of a claim under 12 Rule 41(a) is properly labeled an amendment under Rule 15 is a technical, not a substantive 13 distinction.”) (quoting Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc., 203 F.3d 782, 784 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Federal 14 Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15 provides that “a party may amend its pleading only with the 15 opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Therefore, on October 5, 2023, the Court 16 ordered Defendants County of Fresno, Fresno County Sheriff-Coroner Margaret Mims, 17 Correctional Lieutenant Jami Carter, Sergeant Chris Garcia, and Officers Frank Ponce, Moises 18 Franco, Meng Cha, Linda Thao, Ka Her, Jose Alanis, Anthony Sanchez, Rachel LeBoeuf, David 19 Ventura, Dillon Owens, and Jonathan Sanchez (the “County Defendants”), to file a statement 20 signifying whether they approve or disapprove of the terms of the stipulation filed on October 4, 21 2023, and consent to allowing for Plaintiffs’ second cause of action against Defendants 22 Genevieve Garcia, R.N., and Maria Guerrero, R.N. be dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 90.) 23 On October 12, 2023, the County Defendants filed a statement indicating that Defendants 24 Genevieve Garcia, R.N., and Maria Guerrero, R.N., should not be dismissed from the second 25 claim for relief for excessive force. (ECF No. 92.) Therefore, there is not consent from all 26 parties to amendment or dismissal. In light of the opposition, the Court is unable to construe the 27 Rule 41 dismissal as a stipulation for leave to amend under Rule 15, and instead, if Plaintiffs and 1 amend with any joining parties. 2 The Court turns to a related issue. On September 26, 2023, the parties filed a stipulated 3 request to clarify the second amended complaint. (ECF No. 86.)1 On September 26, 2023, the 4 Court entered the stipulation of clarification, and issued an order deeming Plaintiffs’ complaint 5 amended to reflect the correct “Sanchez” is referred to in particular points of the complaint, and 6 to reflect that Plaintiffs do not seek punitive or treble damages from Defendant County of 7 Fresno. (ECF No. 87.)2 However, upon review of clarification stipulation, it was not signed by 8 all Defendants but rather only counsel for the County Defendants. (ECF No. 86.) In light of the 9 more recent stipulation and now opposition by the County Defendants thereto, and to ensure 10 uniform and equal application of the rules and law, the Court shall additionally require the 11 parties notify the Court if any parties oppose the Court’s previous entering of that stipulation. 12 In that regard, the parties shall meet and confer regarding whether there is agreement to 13 grant leave to file an amended complaint as to the content of both stipulations, and if not, 14 Plaintiff and any parties joining in a motion for leave to amend (or one individual component of 15 leave to amend), shall file such motion for leave to amend. If the parties do not agree to the 16 previous amendment, and the parties do not file a motion for leave, or if the Court denies leave to 17 amend, it will strike the September 26, 2023, order entering the stipulation of clarification. 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 1 First, two Defendants have the last name “Sanchez.” In paragraphs 31, 33, 40, and 42 of the second amended 23 complaint, Plaintiffs refer to “Sanchez” or “Officer Sanchez” without specifying the first name of the referenced person. The Parties stipulated that: (a) in paragraphs 31 and 33, “Sanchez” and “Officer Sanchez” refer to Officer 24 Jonathan Sanchez; and (b) in paragraphs 40 and 42, “Sanchez” and “Officer Sanchez” refer to Officer Anthony Sanchez. (ECF No. 86.) Second, the parties stipulated that Plaintiffs do not seek punitive or treble damages from 25 Defendant County of Fresno. (Id.) 2 While clarifying the names “Sanchez” is really a minor clarification, the removal of punitive damages is more 26 substantive. However, the Court notes a claim for punitive damages is likely not considered an independent cause of action. See Turner v. Modesto Police Dep't, No. 123CV00210ADASAB, 2023 WL 4424588, at *16 (E.D. Cal. 27 July 10, 2023) (“A request for punitive damages is not a standalone cause of action, it is merely a type of remedy that is dependent upon a viable cause of action.” (citing, e.g., Marroquin v. Pfizer, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 3d 1152, 1168 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days of entry of this 2 | order: 3 1. The stipulated Rule 41 dismissal filed October 4, 2023, (ECF No. 88), as opposed 4 (ECF No. 92), is DENIED as procedurally improper; 5 2. If there is agreement of the parties, the parties shall file a stipulation for leave to 6 amend specifically relating to either of the above described requests previously 7 filed by the parties (ECF Nos. 86, 88); 8 3. If there is not a stipulation from all parties as to any component of leave, Plaintiff, 9 and any joining parties, may file a motion for leave to amend the complaint 10 requesting leave to amend as to any above described component; and 11 4. If no motion or stipulation is filed, the Court will strike the previous order 12 entering and approving the stipulation of clarification (ECF Nos. 86, 87). 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 15 | Dated: _October 13, 2023 _ ef 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28