Franklin v. Scripps Health

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHELLE FRANKLIN, et al., Case No. 22-cv-0367-MMA-MMP individually and on behalf of all others 12 similarly situated, ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION 13 TO DISMISS WITHOUT Plaintiffs, PREJUDICE TO FUTURE FILINGS 14 v. 15 [Doc. No. 26] SCRIPPS HEALTH, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 On April 30, 2025, Plaintiffs Michelle Franklin and Irene Gamboa (“Plaintiffs”) 21 and Defendant Scripps Health (“Defendant”) filed a joint stipulation, which the Court 22 construes as a joint motion, to dismiss Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action (Private Attorney 23 General Act) against Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). 24 Doc. No. 26. However, Rule 41(a) provides for dismissal only as to actions, not as to 25 individual claims within an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. 26 U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687–88 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that Rule 41(a) does not 27 allow for “piecemeal dismissals,” and that “withdrawals of individual claims against a 28 given defendant are governed by [Rule] 15 . . . .”). 1 Therefore, the Court DENIES the joint motion without prejudice to filing a motion 2 amend the pleadings after the stay is lifted. The parties are reminded that they are to 3 || file a joint status report within five (5) business days of the conclusion of the state 4 ||court actions for which this matter was stayed. Doc. No. 22 at 11. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: May 1, 2025 Mike TM - □□ toll 7 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28