Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01468/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01468-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Plaintiffs Elenor Patino and Lillyanna Patino stipulated with Defendants California 

Forensic Medical Group, Inc., Jessica Aguilar, Brandon Boggs, and Amber Nunes to dismiss one 

of Plaintiffs’ four causes of action — namely, the second cause of action for violation of 

California Government Code § 845.6 — against California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., Jessica 

Aguilar, Brandon Boggs, and Amber Nunes. See Doc. No. 42 (stipulation and proposed order). 

According to these parties, the stipulation was made pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, and these parties ask the Court to issue an order adopting the stipulation pursuant 

to Rule 41. The stipulation neither encompasses nor was agreed to by Defendants County of 

Merced, Vernon Warnke, Greg Sullivan, Corey Gibson, and Aaron Rosenburg.

The stipulation and proposed order are procedurally improper. When a party seeks to 

dismiss some, but not all, of its claims, Rule 15 governs, not Rule 41. See Gen. Signal Corp. v. 

MCI Telecommunications Corp., 66 F.3d 1500, 1513 (9th Cir.1995) (“[W]e have held that Rule 

15, not Rule 41, governs the situation when a party dismisses some, but not all, of its claims.”). 

/ / /

ELENOR SKYE VILLANUEVA PATINO 

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF MERCED et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:18-CV-01468-AWI-SAB

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION AND 

PROPOSED ORDER

(Doc. No. 42)

Case 1:18-cv-01468-AWI-SAB Document 44 Filed 04/06/20 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Accordingly, if Plaintiffs wish to dismiss less than all of their claims, then they must attempt to do 

so pursuant Rule 15’s amendment procedures.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulation and proposed order (Doc. 

No. 42) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2020 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01468-AWI-SAB Document 44 Filed 04/06/20 Page 2 of 2