Alexis Rivera v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises LLC., and Does 1 through 10

E.D. California

Alexis Rivera v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises LLC., and Does 1 through 10

DecidedDecember 31, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-00333

StatusUnknown

This text of Alexis Rivera v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises LLC., and Does 1 through 10 (Alexis Rivera v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises LLC., and Does 1 through 10) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexis Rivera v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises LLC., and Does 1 through 10, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ALEXIS RIVERA, an individual, Case No. 1:24-cv-00333-JLT-SAB

10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO CONSTRUE PLAINTIFF’S v. REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 11 AS MOTION TO AMEND THE O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES COMPLAINT TO EXCLUDE THE SECOND 12 LLC., and DOES 1 through 10, AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

13 Defendants. (Doc. 47) 14 15 16 Plaintiff asks this Court to dismiss the second and third claims raised in his Complaint 17 with prejudice. (See generally Doc. 47.) The Ninth Circuit has held that Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 41(a)(1) cannot be used to dismiss individual claims against defendants, and that Rule 19 15 provides the proper mechanism to do so. See Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 20 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (“In the specific context of Rule 41(a)(1), we have held that the 21 Rule does not allow for piecemeal dismissals. Instead, withdrawals of individual claims against a 22 given defendant are governed by [Rule 15].”); Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 23 1392 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding a plaintiff cannot use Rule 41 “to dismiss, unilaterally, a single 24 claim from a multi-claim complaint.”); but see Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th 25 Cir. 1997) (“The Plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims, 26 through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice.”). Thus, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s unopposed request to 27 dismiss the second and third causes of action as a Rule 15 request to amend the Complaint. See 28 Hells Canyon Pres. Council, 403 F.3d at 689 (“The fact that a voluntary dismissal of a claim 1 under Rule 41(a) is properly labeled an amendment under Rule 15 is a technical, not a substantive 2 | distinction.”) (quoting Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc., 203 F.3d 782, 784 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). 3 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s complaint filed on March 21, 2024 is 4 | DEEMED AMENDED to omit the failure to accommodate and failure to engage in interactive 5 | process claims. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: _ December 31, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ALEXIS RIVERA, an individual, Case No. 1:24-cv-00333-JLT-SAB

10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO CONSTRUE PLAINTIFF’S v. REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 11 AS MOTION TO AMEND THE O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES COMPLAINT TO EXCLUDE THE SECOND 12 LLC., and DOES 1 through 10, AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

13 Defendants. (Doc. 47) 14 15 16 Plaintiff asks this Court to dismiss the second and third claims raised in his Complaint 17 with prejudice. (See generally Doc. 47.) The Ninth Circuit has held that Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 41(a)(1) cannot be used to dismiss individual claims against defendants, and that Rule 19 15 provides the proper mechanism to do so. See Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 20 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (“In the specific context of Rule 41(a)(1), we have held that the 21 Rule does not allow for piecemeal dismissals. Instead, withdrawals of individual claims against a 22 given defendant are governed by [Rule 15].”); Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 23 1392 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding a plaintiff cannot use Rule 41 “to dismiss, unilaterally, a single 24 claim from a multi-claim complaint.”); but see Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th 25 Cir. 1997) (“The Plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims, 26 through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice.”). Thus, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s unopposed request to 27 dismiss the second and third causes of action as a Rule 15 request to amend the Complaint. See 28 Hells Canyon Pres. Council, 403 F.3d at 689 (“The fact that a voluntary dismissal of a claim 1 under Rule 41(a) is properly labeled an amendment under Rule 15 is a technical, not a substantive 2 | distinction.”) (quoting Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc., 203 F.3d 782, 784 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). 3 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s complaint filed on March 21, 2024 is 4 | DEEMED AMENDED to omit the failure to accommodate and failure to engage in interactive 5 | process claims. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: _ December 31, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Alexis Rivera v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises LLC., and Does 1 through 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexis-rivera-v-oreilly-auto-enterprises-llc-and-does-1-through-10-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack