Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01493/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01493-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

PATRICK GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PRAXAIR, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01493-SAB

ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH 

PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH AND 

SIXTH CAUSES OF ACTION

(ECF No. 34)

Patrick Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in this action on October 29, 2018. On April 2, 

2020, a stipulation to dismiss the fifth and sixth causes of action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii) was filed. 

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 

Case 1:18-cv-01493-SAB Document 35 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 2
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e

S u i t e 3 0 2

F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5

5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0

STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH AND 

SIXTH CAUSES OF ACTION

Case No. 1:18-CV-01493-LJO-SAB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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 

operative complaint filed October 29, 2018 (ECF No. 1) is DEEMED AMENDED and the fifth and 

sixth causes of action are no longer alleged against Defendant Praxair, Inc. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01493-SAB Document 35 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 2