Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02427/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02427-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities Foundation Incorporated
Plaintiff
Trailside Center Incorporated
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities 

Foundation Incorporated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Trailside Center Incorporated, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-16-02427-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Federal Claims Without 

Prejudice and Motion to Remand (Doc. 11). 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 some, but not all, of 

its claims.”) (citations omitted). Thus, “‘a plaintiff may not use [Rule 41(a)(1)] to 

Case 2:16-cv-02427-JJT Document 12 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 

27 

28 

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 THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal of Federal Claims Without Prejudice and Motion to Remand (Doc. 11). 

 

 Dated this 5th day of August, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

 

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-02427-JJT Document 12 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 2