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

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELISSA LOIS WALKER, Case No. 1:21-cv-00879-ADA-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER RE STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, 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

Defendants. (ECF No. 71) 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.) 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. 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. IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le Dated: _May 17, 2023 __ OO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE