Walker v. Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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 HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN MISSOURI ONLY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., (ECF No. 53) 15 Defendants.

18 On October 20, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of Plaintiff’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“RFDCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788 et seq., cause of action (Count XIII) as against Defendant Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri (“MOHELA”) only. (ECF No. 53.)

22 The Ninth Circuit has issued mixed orders with respect to whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) can be used to dismiss individual claims against defendants, as opposed to Rule 15. Compare 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].”) 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 | Rule 41(a)(1) notice.”). Here, 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.”) (quoting Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc., 203 | F.3d 782, 784 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Furthermore, the stipulation is consistent with the parties’ | request, which the Court indicated it would grant, at the October 12, 2022 hearing on | MOHELA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. (See ECF No. 49.) Therefore, the Court will | give full effect to the parties’ stipulation.

10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to the parties’ stipulation to | dismiss Plaintiff's Count XII with prejudice as asserted against Defendant MOHELA only, | Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) is DEEMED AMENDED and the Rosenthal Fair Debt | Collections Practices Act cause of action (Count XII) is no longer alleged against Defendant | Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri.

16 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le | Dated: _ October 21, 2022 _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE