Opinion
CV-22-00859-PHX-DWL
09-07-2023
Amanda Wray, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Jann-Michael Greenburg, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Dominic W. Lanza, United States District Judge
The parties have filed a stipulation for partial dismissal (Doc. 94) pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which permits dismissal of “an action.” But dismissal of this action is not sought. The stipulation, if granted, would not eliminate any defendant from this action- indeed, it would not even eliminate any claim-and would merely resolve certain defendants' liability as to only one of the plaintiffs. Rule 41 is inappropriate in this circumstance. Instead, the parties can accomplish what they seek by agreeing to the filing of a second amended complaint that clarifies which claims by which plaintiff(s) against which defendant(s) remain at issue. Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (“As its title, ‘Dismissal of Actions,' suggests, Rule 41, or at least Rule 41(a), governs dismissals of entire actions, not of individual claims. Most contemporary courts, including our own, have declined to read the rule literally as permitting the dismissal only of an entire action against all defendants. These same cases, however, have only extended the rule to allow the dismissal of all claims against one defendant, so that a defendant may be dismissed from the entire action. Nothing in the case law suggests that Rule 41(a) extends to the voluntary withdrawal of individual claims against a defendant remaining in the case. . . . Instead, withdrawals of individual claims against a given defendant are governed by [Rule] 15, which addresses amendments to pleadings. . . .”).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties' stipulation to dismiss certain claims (Doc. 94) is denied. Pursuant to LRCiv 15.1, Plaintiffs can amend without seeking the Court's leave with the opposing parties' written consent.