Garcia v. Praxair Inc.

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 FRESNO DIVISION | PATRICK GARCIA, Case No. 1:18-cv-01493-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH | y. PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH AND SIXTH CAUSES OF ACTION | PRAXAIR, INC., (ECF No. 34) I5 Defendant.

17 Patrick Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in this action on October 29, 2018. On April 2, || 2020, a stipulation to dismiss the fifth and sixth causes of action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. || 41(a)(1)(A)Cii) was filed.

20 The Ninth Circuit has held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) cannot be used to || dismiss individual claims against defendants, and that Rule 15 is the proper mechanism to do so.

22 || 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 || dismissals. Instead, withdrawals of individual claims against a given defendant are governed by || [Rule 15].”); Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding a || plaintiff cannot use Rule 41 “to dismiss, unilaterally, a single claim from a multi-claim complaint.”); || but see 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 Rule 41(a)(1) notice.”). The || Court finds it proper to construe the parties’ stipulation to dismiss the individual cause of action as || consent to amend the complaint under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Hells || Canyon Pres. Council, 403 F.3d at 689 (“The fact that a voluntary dismissal of a claim under Rule || 41(a) is properly labeled an amendment under Rule 15 is a technical, not a substantive distinction.”’)

6 || (quoting Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc., 203 F.3d 782, 784 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Therefore, the Court will || give full effect to the parties’ stipulation through a Rule 15 amendment.

8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to the parties’ stipulation the || operative complaint filed October 29, 2018 (ECF No. 1) is DEEMED AMENDED and the fifth and || sixth causes of action are no longer alleged against Defendant Praxair, Inc. b IT IS SO ORDERED. □□ (Se || Dated: _ April 2, 2020 OF 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Case No. 1:18-CV-01493-LJO-SAB WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH AND