Opinion
1:20-cv-01820-NE-JLT
06-10-2021
CHARLES HAYES, Plaintiff, v. DEPUTY MARIO ROJAS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING STATE LAW CLAIMS AT PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST (DOC. NO. 20)
On December 6, 2019, plaintiff Charles Hayes filed a complaint against Kern County and Does 1 through 20. (Hayes v. Kern County, No. 1:19-cv-01722 (“Hayes I”), Doc. No. 1.) In Hayes I plaintiff asserted federal and state claims related to his arrest in Las Vegas and transfer to Kern County, generally alleging that he was improperly held in custody based on an erroneous identification. (Id.) The parties consented to have the assigned magistrate judge preside over all aspects of Hayes I. (Hayes I, Doc. No. 9.) On December 21, 2020, the magistrate judge denied plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint in Hayes I, finding that the motion, which did not comport with the scheduling order in that matter, was untimely and failed to justify the late amendment. (Hayes I, Doc. No. 23.)
On December 28, 2020, approximately one week after the motion to amend in Hayes I was denied, plaintiff initiated the instant action (“Hayes II”). (Doc. No. 1.) The complaint in Hayes II names as defendants a number of individual peace officers employed by Kern County who were allegedly involved in the false arrest, misidentification, and erroneous imprisonment that was at issue in Hayes I (Id.) The actions of these individual officers were at issue in Hayes I, but the officers had not yet been identified and therefore were named as Does in Hayes I With respect to these now-identified individual defendants, plaintiffs complaint in Hayes II advances a § 1983 false arrest and false imprisonment claim as well as state law claims for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Id.)
On May 6, 2021, defendants in this case moved to dismiss the state law claims asserted in Hayes II as barred by the applicable statute of limitations and for failure to comply with California's Government Tort Claims Act. (Doc. No. 14. ) On May 25, 2020, plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition, indicating that he “dismisses the state law claims in this action.” (Doc. No. 20.) This is a clear statement of intent to withdraw the state law claims that the court will construe as a request to amend the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. See Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 690 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining that Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 not Fed.R.Civ.P. 41 controls where a party agrees to dismiss some but not all claims from a case). Because this withdrawal took place within the time period for amending as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1)(A), the court's leave is not required. Accordingly, plaintiffs request to dismiss his state law claims, construed as a motion to amend, is GRANTED.
Subsequent to the filing of plaintiff s statement of non-opposition, the parties stipulated to a stay of this case pending a ruling on a motion for multi-district litigation treatment that is before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation. (Doc. No. 21, filed June 2, 2021.) That stipulation appears to have been focused primarily on staying ongoing discovery. The court does not construe it as a request to hold the pending motion to dismiss in abeyance and the court is therefore issuing this order ruling on that motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.