Farnsworth v. Flagstaff, City of

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5

9 Joseph Farnsworth, et al., No. CV-19-08287-PCT-JAT

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 City of Flagstaff, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation and Joint Motion to Dismiss 16 Certain Claims and the Individual Defendants with Prejudice and to Remand to the 17 Coconino County Superior Court (Doc. 35). As the Motion’s title indicates, the Motion 18 seeks dismissal of all claims against several defendants and seeks dismissal of only certain 19 claims against the other defendants. (Doc. 35). The Court now rules on the Motion 20 (Doc. 35). 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) governs voluntary dismissals by a plaintiff. 22 Specifically, “the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . a 23 stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. 24 P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Rule 41(a)(1)’s plain text thus allows only for voluntary dismissal of an 25 action, not an individual claim. See Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest 26 Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005). 27 Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit has construed Rule 41(a)(1) to allow a party to 28 dismiss all claims against a defendant—in a case with more than one defendant—when all 1 parties that have appeared have stipulated to such a dismissal. See Hells Canyon 2 Preservation Council, 403 F.3d at 687; Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609–10 & n.1 (9th 3 Cir. 1993); see also Lee v. Am. Airlines, No. 07-0541 SC, 2007 WL 2212907, at *1 (N.D. 4 Cal. July 31, 2007). Here, the parties have agreed to dismissal of all claims, with prejudice, 5 against the following defendants: (1) Larry Phoenix, (2) Luke Apfel, and (3) Colby Walton. 6 (Doc. 35 at 2). The Court will therefore dismiss these defendants from the case with 7 prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) based on the parties’ stipulation (Doc. 35). 8 However, Rule 41(a)(1) does not allow a plaintiff to dismiss individual claims. Fed. 9 R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A) (providing that “[t]he plaintiff may dismiss an action” under certain 10 circumstances (emphasis added)); Hells Canyon Preservation Council, 403 F.3d at 687. 11 As such, a withdrawal of an individual claim must instead be done under Federal Rule of 12 Civil Procedure 15. Hells Canyon Preservation Council, 403 F.3d at 687–88; Gen. Signal 13 Corp. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 66 F.3d 1500, 1513 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[W]e have held that 14 Rule 15, not Rule 41, governs the situation when a party dismisses some, but not all, of its 15 claims.” (citations omitted)). 16 The Court therefore construes the Motion’s (Doc. 35) request to dismiss counts 3 17 and 4 of the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 31) as a stipulation to amend the First 18 Amended Complaint (Doc. 31) under Rule 15(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, 19 no amended complaint has been filed. Plaintiffs must file an amended complaint by Friday, 20 April 10, 2020. Assuming Plaintiffs properly do so, the Court will remand thereafter. 21 Accordingly, 22 IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulation and Joint Motion to Dismiss Certain 23 Claims and the Individual Defendants with Prejudice and to Remand to the Coconino 24 County Superior Court (Doc. 35) is GRANTED IN PART. 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), that the claims against Defendants Larry Phoenix, Luke Apfel, and Colby 27 Walton are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE according to the parties’ stipulation (Doc. 28 35 at 2). The Clerk of Court shall terminate these defendants from the case. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs may amend the First Amended || Complaint (Doc. 31) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) by Friday, April 3}| 10,2020. 4 Dated this 3rd day of April, 2020. 5 6 '

James A. CO 8 Senior United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-