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 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, 13 v. FOURTH, ELEVENTH, AND THIRTEENTH CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN DEFENDANT ACTION FINANCIAL AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF SERVICES, LLC, DEEMING COMPLAINT MISSOURI, et al., AMENDED 16 Defendants. (ECF No. 71) 18 On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendant Action Financial Services, LLC, filed a stipulation agreeing to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(II) Plaintiff’s first, second, third, fourth, eleventh, and thirteenth causes of action against Defendant Action Financial Services, LLC. (ECF No. 71.) These causes of action as to other Defendants, and all other causes of action, including those against this Defendant, will remain active. (Id.) 23 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. 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.”) (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.

11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the | Plaintiff's complaint is DEEMED AMENDED and the first, second, third, fourth, eleventh, and | thirteenth causes of action are no longer alleged against Defendant Action Financial Services, | LLC.

16 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le | Dated: _May 17, 2023 __ OO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE