McCoy v. Alameda County et al

Filing 30

NOTICE REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS re 29 Stipulation, filed by Alameda County Sheriff's Department, Stuart E. Barnes, N. Gonzalgo, Arthur McCoy, Gregory Ahern, Alameda County, B. Baker, Erich D. Marapao. Signed by Judge Alsup on November 18, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2011)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8

ARTHUR MCCOY,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 11-01569 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

NOTICE REGARDING
DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS

13

ALAMEDA COUNTY, a municipal
corporation; B. BARKER; ERICH D.
MARAPAO; N. GONZALGO; STUART
BARNES; and DOES 1–25, inclusive,

14

Defendants.

12

/

15
16

The parties filed a stipulation to dismiss under FRCP 41(A)(1) claims 6 (negligence) and 7

17

(breach of duty to supervise, train and discipline) in plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. No. 29).

18

Our court of appeals has held that a plaintiff may not use Rule 41(a)(1) to dismiss one or more but

19

less than all of several claims. Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service,

20

403 F.3d 683, 687–688 (9th Cir. 2005). “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) is the appropriate

21

mechanism [w]here a plaintiff desires to eliminate an issue, or one or more but less than all of

22

several claims, but without dismissing as to any of the defendants.” id. at 688. According, the

23

purported dismissal was invalid. The parties instead should file a motion for leave to amend

24

the complaint

25
26
27
28

Dated: November 18, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE