Martinez v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICOLAS MARTINEZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-01643-ADA-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS PURSUANT 13 v. TO RULE 42(a) AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ADJUST THE DOCKET TO 14 O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, et REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF al. CERTAIN DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a) 15 Defendants. 16 (Doc. 9) 17 18 THEODORE HATLESTAD, Case No. 1:22-cv-01644-ADA-CDB 19 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS PURSUANT 20 v. TO RULE 42(a) AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ADJUST THE DOCKET TO 21 O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF et al. CERTAIN DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO 22 RULE 41(a) Defendants. 23 (Doc. 10) 24 25 26 27 Pending before the Court are the parties’ stipulations in these two related actions seeking to consolidate the actions and dismiss certain defendants and claims. 1 In deciding whether to consolidate actions pursuant to Rule 42(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., the 2 court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any 3 inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 4 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, given that the two actions the parties seek to consolidate involve similar 5 facts and claims, and given that the parties jointly request consolidation, the Court concludes that 6 consolidation is appropriate because the balance of savings of time and effort that consolidation 7 will produce outweighs any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.1 8 Separately, the parties stipulate that Defendants Austin Gilmore and Jason Vellido be 9 dismissed from both actions. The Court construes the parties’ filings as stipulations pursuant to 10 Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which provides that an action may be dismissed without court order by “a 11 stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” Dismissals under Rule 12 41(a)(1)(A), when properly filed, are effective immediately and do not require a court order/court 13 approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 14 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, the stipulations have the effect of terminating this case as to 15 Defendants Gilmore and Vellido. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1); Commercial Space, 193 F.3d at 16 1077. See also Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 403 F.3d 683, 688 (9th 17 Cir. 2005) (endorsing view that Rule 41(a)(1) permits dismissal of all claims against a single 18 defendant in multi-defendant case). 19 Additionally, in Case No. 1:22-cv-01643-ADA-CDB, the parties stipulate to dismissal of 20 the fourth cause of action (negligence), and in Case No. 1:22-cv-1644-ADA-CDB, the parties 21 stipulate to dismissal of the third and fifth causes of action (FEHA harassment and negligence). 22 However, the Court of Appeals has held that Rule 41(a)(1) may not be used to dismiss single 23 claims from a multi-claim complaint. See Hells Canyon, 403 F.3d at 688 (noting that Rule 24 25 1 The matter of consolidation properly is before and decided by the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) & (b)(3) and Local Rule 302(a) (E.D. Cal. 2022). See, e.g., Carcaise 26 v. Cemex, Inc., 217 F. Supp.2d 603, 604 & n.1 (W.D. Pa. 2002) (“this magistrate judge has the authority to rule on the request to consolidate as a non-dispositive motion”) (citing Trafalgar 27 Power, Inc. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 131 F. Supp.2d 341, 343 (N.D.N.Y. 2001)) (same). Accord Bennett v. Ocwen Loan Serv’g, LLC, 2016 WL 4267629, *3 (N.D. Ga. June 13, 2016); Gilliam v. 1 | 41(a)(1) “does not allow for piecemeal dismissal”) (citing Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 2 | 861 F.2d 1389, 1392 (9th Cir. 2001)). Instead, amendment of pleadings pursuant to Rule 15(a) 3 | “ds the appropriate mechanism” to dismiss one or more but less than all of several claims. Id. 4 Accordingly, upon consideration of the parties’ stipulations, and for good cause 5 | appearing, itis HEREBY ORDERED, the actions denominated as Martinez v. O'Reilly Auto 6 | Enterprises, LLC, et al. (No. 1:22-cv-01643-ADA-CDB) and Hatlestad v. O’Reilly Auto 7 | Enterprises, LLC, et al. (No. 1:22-cv-01644-ADA-CDB) are CONSOLIDATED under Fed. R. 8 | Civ. P. 42(a). 9 FURTHER, the Clerk of Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to CLOSE the file as to 10 | Defendants Austin Gilmore and Jason Vellido and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal 11 | of this action as to those two Defendants only pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A) □□□□ 12 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: _ January 31, 2023 | Vv Vv RR 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28