Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02423/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02423-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 

WO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Advocates for Individuals with 

Disabilities Foundation, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Weingarten Nostat, Inc., 

 Defendants. 

No.: CV16-02423-PHX DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Federal Claims Without 

Prejudice and Motion to Remand. Doc. 10. Plaintiff purports to use Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) to dismiss its federal claims under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq. (“ADA”). With the basis for this Court’s 

federal question jurisdiction thus eliminated, Plaintiff asks the Court to remand this 

case to state court. Id.

 The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 41(a)(1) “does not allow for piecemeal 

dismissals.” Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th 

Cir. 2005). “Instead, withdrawals of individual claims against a given defendant are 

governed by [Rule] 15, which addresses amendments to pleadings.” Id. (citing 

Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389 (9th Cir. 1988)); see also Gen. 

Signal Corp. v. MCI Telecomms. 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 

Case 2:16-cv-02423-DGC Document 11 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 2
 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 

some, but not all, of its claims.”) (citations omitted). Thus, “‘a plaintiff may not use 

[Rule 41(a)(1)] to dismiss, unilaterally, a single claim from a multi-claim complaint.’” 

Hells Canyon, 403 F.3d at 687 (quoting Ethridge, 861 F.2d at 1392). Other circuits 

agree. See id. n.4 (collecting cases); see also S. Gensler, Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Rules and Commentary, at 1014 (Thomson Reuters 2016) (“[I]f a plaintiff 

has multiple claims against a defendant and wishes to dismiss one or more – but not all 

– of those claims, the appropriate procedural mechanism is to file an amended 

complaint under Rule 15(a).”).1

 The Court will disregard Plaintiff’s attempted dismissal of its ADA claim and 

deny its motion to remand. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Federal 

Claims Without Prejudice and Motion to Remand (Doc. 10) is denied. 

 Dated this 5th day of August, 2016. 

 

1

 The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 41(a)(1) permits a plaintiff to dismiss all claims 

against a particular defendant, even if other defendants remain in the case, Pedrina v. 

Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th Cir. 1993), but that is not what Plaintiff attempts to do 

here. 

Case 2:16-cv-02423-DGC Document 11 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 2