Walker v. Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MELISSA LOIS WALKER, Case No. 1:21-cv-00879-ADA-SAB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER RE STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COUNT XIII AS AGAINST 12 v. DEFENDANT HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF 13 HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN MISSOURI ONLY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF 14 MISSOURI, et al., (ECF No. 53) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On October 20, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of Plaintiff’s Rosenthal 19 Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“RFDCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788 et seq., cause of 20 action (Count XIII) as against Defendant Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of 21 Missouri (“MOHELA”) only. (ECF No. 53.) 22 The Ninth Circuit has issued mixed orders with respect to whether Federal Rule of Civil 23 Procedure 41(a)(1) can be used to dismiss individual claims against defendants, as opposed to 24 Rule 15. Compare Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 25 2005) (“In the specific context of Rule 41(a)(1), we have held that the Rule does not allow for 26 piecemeal dismissals. Instead, withdrawals of individual claims against a given defendant are 27 governed by [Rule 15].”) with Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The Plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims, through a 1 | Rule 41(a)(1) notice.”). Here, the Court finds it proper to construe the parties’ stipulation to 2 | dismiss the individual cause of action as consent to amend the complaint under Rule 15 of the 3 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Hells Canyon Pres. Council, 403 F.3d at 689 (“The fact 4 | that a voluntary dismissal of a claim under Rule 41(a) is properly labeled an amendment under 5 | Rule 15 is a technical, not a substantive distinction.”) (quoting Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc., 203 6 | F.3d 782, 784 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Furthermore, the stipulation is consistent with the parties’ 7 | request, which the Court indicated it would grant, at the October 12, 2022 hearing on 8 | MOHELA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. (See ECF No. 49.) Therefore, the Court will 9 | give full effect to the parties’ stipulation. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to the parties’ stipulation to 11 | dismiss Plaintiff's Count XII with prejudice as asserted against Defendant MOHELA only, 12 | Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) is DEEMED AMENDED and the Rosenthal Fair Debt 13 | Collections Practices Act cause of action (Count XII) is no longer alleged against Defendant 14 | Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 17 | Dated: _ October 21, 2022 _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28