Christian Life Center v. Ford Motor Co. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER, INC., No. 2:24-cv-00944-DC-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF ITS 14 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al, FEDERAL CLAIMS 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 21) 16 17 This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the two federal 18 claims it brought in this lemon law case. (Doc. No. 21.) The pending motion was taken under 19 submission to be decided on the papers pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (Doc. No. 24.) For the 20 reasons explained below, the court will deny Plaintiff’s motion as improper. 21 BACKGROUND 22 On June 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Ford Motor Company 23 and Big Valley Ford Lincoln in the San Joaquin County Superior Court. (Doc. Nos. 1 at ¶ 2; 1-2.) 24 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint to add Defendants Roush Industries, Inc., and Roush 25 Performance, Inc., on February 10, 2022. (Doc. Nos. 1 at ¶ 3; 1-3.) On March 1, 2024, Plaintiff 26 filed a second amended complaint pursuant to a stipulation between the parties. (Doc. No. 22-1 at 27 ¶ 9.) That same day, Plaintiff filed the operative second amended complaint against Defendants 28 Ford Motor Company and Kovington Performance Holdings, Inc. doing business as Roush 1 Performance, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), bringing three claims for violations of the 2 California Song-Beverly Act and two claims for violations of the federal Magnuson-Moss 3 Warranty Act (“Magnuson-Moss”). (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 4; 1-4.) On March 26, 2024, Defendant Ford 4 Motor Company removed this action to this court with the consent of Defendant Roush 5 Performance, Inc. on the basis of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 6 1441, and 1446. (Doc. Nos. 1 at 2; 1-1 at ¶ 29.) 7 On May 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed the pending motion to voluntary dismiss its Magnuson- 8 Moss claims without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). (Doc. No. 21.) 9 Defendants filed oppositions to the motion on May 20, 2024. (Doc. Nos. 22–23.) Plaintiff then 10 filed replies in support of its motion on May 29, 2024. (Doc. Nos. 25–26.) 11 DISCUSSION 12 Plaintiff seeks to dismiss its Magnuson-Moss claims without prejudice pursuant to Federal 13 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). (Doc. No. 21.) However, Rule 41(a) concerns dismissal of an 14 entire action or all claims against a particular defendant. eCASH Techs., Inc. v. Guagliardo, 35 F. 15 App’x 498, 499 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Gen. Signal Corp. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 66 F.3d 16 1500, 1513 (9th Cir. 1995)). When a plaintiff seeks to dismiss only certain claims against a 17 defendant, Rule 41(a) does not apply. See Ethride v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1392 18 (9th Cir. 1998) (“A plaintiff may not use Rule 41(a)(1)(i) to dismiss, unilaterally, a single claim 19 from a multi-claim complaint.”); see also Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 20 F.3d 683, 687–89 (9th Cir. 2005) (applying the same reasoning for Rule 41(a)(2)). Instead, the 21 Ninth Circuit has held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 is the appropriate mechanism to 22 dismiss individual claims. Hells Canyon, 403 F.3d at 687–89; Gen. Signal Corp., 66 F.3d at 1513. 23 Although Plaintiff acknowledges Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 in its replies, the 24 instant motion is not a motion for leave to amend pursuant to Rule 15. Accordingly, the court will 25 deny Plaintiff’s pending motion to dismiss its two federal claims pursuant to Rule 41(a) as 26 improper. 27 /// 28 /// 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons explained above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal of its fourth and fifth causes of action 4 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) is denied; and 5 2. To the extent Plaintiff intends to seek leave to amend its pleadings, Plaintiff shall 6 file a motion for leave to amend no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date 7 of entry of this order and must comply with Local Rule 137(c). 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 10 | Dated: _ November 20, 2024 LY os Dena Coggins 1] United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28