McGee et al v. Poverello House et al

Filing 45

ORDER RE STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 ET SEQ., signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/4/2019. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

JILL MCGEE; et al.,

12
13

Case No. 1:18-cv-00768-LJO-SAB
ORDER RE STIPULATION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFFS’ SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION,
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.

Plaintiffs,
v.

14
15

POVERELLO HOUSE; et al.,
Defendants.

16

(ECF No. 43)

17
18

On October 2, 2019, stipulations were filed to dismiss certain Plaintiffs from this action

19

and to dismiss Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action. An order was filed on October 3, 2019, dismiss

20
21

Plaintiffs Noadiah Riaz, Christine Dambrosi and Lacey Hoxsie from this action without
prejudice. By this order, the Court addresses the parties’ stipulation to dismiss the sixth cause
of action.

22
23
24
25

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

26

the specific context of Rule 41(a)(1), we have held that the Rule does not allow for piecemeal

27

dismissals. Instead, withdrawals of individual claims against a given defendant are governed by

28

[Rule 15].”); Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding a

1

1

plaintiff cannot use Rule 41 “to dismiss, unilaterally, a single claim from a multi-claim

2

complaint.”); but see Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The

3

Plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims, through a Rule

4

41(a)(1) notice.”). The Court finds it proper to construe the parties’ stipulation to dismiss the

5

individual cause of action as consent to amend the complaint under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules

6

of Civil Procedure. See Hells Canyon Pres. Council, 403 F.3d at 689 (“The fact that a voluntary

7

dismissal of a claim under Rule 41(a) is properly labeled an amendment under Rule 15 is a

8

technical, not a substantive distinction.”) (quoting Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc., 203 F.3d 782, 784

9

(Fed. Cir. 2000)). Therefore, the Court will give full effect to the parties’ stipulation through a

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Rule 15 amendment.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to the parties’ stipulation to
dismiss Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action for unfair competition in violation of California
Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. without prejudice against Defendants
Poverello House and Naomi’s House, the Plaintiffs’ operative complaint (ECF No. 1 at 5-16) is
DEEMED AMENDED and the sixth cause of action is no longer alleged against Defendants
Poverello House and Naomi’s House.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

October 4, 2019

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2